Illinois House Floor Debate — May 31, 2003

“The House shall come to order. The Members shall be in their chairs. We ask you to turn off your cell phones, your computers, your pagers. We ask the guests in the gallery to rise and join us for the invocation. We shall be led in prayer today by Lee Crawford, the Assistant Pastor of the Victory Temple Church in Springfield.”

“We shall be led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Representative Ken Dunkin.”

“Roll Call for Attendance. Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker. I have no excused absences to report today.”

“Mr. Bost.” 09300069.doc 1  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“The Clerk shall take the record. There being 116 Members responding to the Attendance Roll Call, there is a quorum present. Mr. Clerk.”

“Mr. Clerk, on the Order of Concurrence there appears House Bill 719. The Chair recognizes Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker. I move that we nonconcur in Senate Amendment 2 to House Bill 719.”

“The Lady has moved that the House nonconcur. Mr. Clerk. The Lady moves that the House nonconcur in Senate Amendment #2. Those in favor say ‘yes’; those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The Se… the House does nonconcur in Senate Amendment #2. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of Senate Bill 823? 823.”

“Put the Bill on the Order of Third Reading and read the Bill for a third time.”

“Representative Younge.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. There are four components to Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 823. Basically, what the Amendment does is make the lieutenant governor the chairman of the board of four entities. First, the Illinois Clean Energy Trust, the purpose of this entity is to provide financial assistance and support to public and private entities for programs that benefit the public by improving energy efficiency. The second component is House Bill 3038, my Bill, which names the lieutenant governor the chairman of the Community Development Finance Corporation. The corporation is a quasi nonprofit entity that makes loans and grants to not-for-profit and community development entities. The third component adds the lieutenant governor as the chairman of the Illinois Investment and Development Authority which helps to grow and create community development financial institutions. And finally, the lieutenant governor is made the chairman of the Illinois Asthma Council which… whose purpose is to make recommendations about the control of asthma. I move for the adoption of the Amendment.”

“Mr. Parke.”

“Good morning, Mr. Parke. It is a beautiful coat you’re wearing today.”

“I hope that it signifies…”

“…what a beautiful day… Very good, very good.”

“Hope it indicates it will be beautiful day for everybody.”

“That’s our goal.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Good morning, Representative Parke.”

“The lieutenant governor testified that he had resources within his budget to fulfill these purposes.”

“Well, these are councils and authorities and there’s no budget money needed except for travel and his testimony in committee was that he would be able to fulfill these functions as chairman. This Amendment merely makes him the chairman, Representative Parke, and there’s no cost associated with what he is asked to do.”

“No, it was… It came out of committee on a unanimous vote.”

“No, I think that’s Representative Currie’s.”

“But it’s beautiful, isn’t it?”

“It is.”

“And isn’t it beautiful.”

“You’re welcome.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take… Have all voted who wish? Have all… Mr. Biggins. The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 115 people voting ‘yes’, 1 person 09300069.doc 7  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 voting ‘no’. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of House Bill 860? I believe it’s on the Order of Concurrence. 860.”

“The Chair recognizes Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. I move that we do concur in Senate Amendments 1 and 2 to House Bill 860. This issue deals with the valuation of affordable housing projects, low-income housing projects. The current statute provides that the income method is the appropriate one if the subsidies come through a rural support program. We think it’s important to provide uniform methodology across the state for all of these projects that have federal tax credits in order to encourage more of these developments. I’d be happy to answer your questions and I’d appreciate your support for the concurrence Motion.”

“The Lady moves for the passage of the Bill and she also moves that the House concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2. And on that question, those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Has Mr. Joe Lyons voted? No. All right. Mr. Clerk, record Mr. Lyons as ‘present’. He should be… Mr. Clerk, can you record him as… Mr. Joe Lyons has entered the chamber. Good morning, Mr. Lyons. The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 115 people voting ‘yes’, 0 voting 09300069.doc 8  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 ‘no’. The House does concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 860. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. The Chair recognizes Mr. Black.”

“State your inquiry.”

“Long.”

“Mr. Clerk, what is the status of Senate Bill 1883? I believe the Bill will be on the Order Senate Second or Third.”

“Representative Currie.”

“I thought we’d already… I’m sorry. I’d like to table Amendment 1. And what this does is it was a shelling Amendment and we went back to committee and we want to restore the Bill to its original substance.” 09300069.doc 9  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“The Motion is to table a Committee Amendment. Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 116 people voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’. The Motion to Table the Committee Amendment is adopted. Are there any further Amendments or Motions?”

“Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker, and Members of the House. The underlying issue is that there are now many more sophisticated arrangements under which people buy, particularly large developments, expensive mall shopping centers and so forth and the issue is the real estate transfer tax. The Bill, as amended with Amendment 2, would provide that those communities that impose a real estate transfer tax would consider these new forms of financing to be eligible for imposition of the tax, but under the Amendment, no earlier projects that have been sold using those forms of conveyance would be directly affected by this change. There is no opposition. And I’d appreciate your support for the Amendment and the underlying Bill.”

Speaker Madigan: “The Lady moves for the adoption of the Amendment. Those in favor say ‘aye’; those opposed… excuse me. Mr. Mautino. Mr. Mautino on the Amendment. Okay. The question is, on the Amendment, those in favor say 09300069.doc 10  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 ‘aye’; those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The Amendment is adopted. Are there any further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. Read the Bill for a third time.”

“Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker. You heard the substance of the Bill when I described Amendment 2. I’d appreciate your ‘aye’ votes.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify… Mr. Black.”

“Black.”

“B-l-a-c-k.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Actually, those communities that have established a real estate transfer tax would continue to be able to do so. The issue in the Bill is defining when that transfer tax applies.” 09300069.doc 11  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“There are now sophisticated financial instruments…”

“…and there have been issues raised at the local level about whether the sale of a shopping center, for example, an industrial complex, whether using REITs and other kinds of financing, whether those are eligible for the transfer tax. And what this Bill does is to clarify that they are.”

“This is the real estate transfer tax and some communities impose a transfer tax when a piece of property is sold. Just a…”

“No.”

“No. The Bill… the Amendments clarify… What we’re talking about is the transfer of real property. And the issue is that the form of the transfer should not affect 09300069.doc 12  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 the question whether the real estate transfer tax applies. This Bill is meant to clarify.”

“Well, I would assume that you have stock in a real estate holding company, Representative, and the company would be charged the transfer tax at the point of which the transfer happened. And you as a stockholder…”

“…would continue to have your… your shares in that real estate holding company.”

“And it would be the company that you invested in that would be charged the transfer tax. Commodities exchange… “

“…issues are not at all involved in this Bill and I believe one of the Amendments, Amendment 2, if necessary, clarified that question. So, it is not a significant change, in fact, most communities thought that these transactions were already covered by virtue of the fact that they had a real estate transfer tax. And certainly, the fact that there has been a change in ownership shouldn’t say one kind of owner isn’t charged the tax because of the form of the ownership and another one is. And that’s all this Bill seeks to clarify, what we thought we did when we gave them the opportunity…“

“…to impose a real estate transfer tax is exactly what they have.”

“That’s right.”

“So, if you were buying…”

“…Oakbrook Shopping Center, for example, through a real estate holding company or a land trust, that sale would be subject to the transfer tax just as it would be if you had done it through a conventional mortgage.”

“This matter is on the Order of Standard Debate. We’ve had one for the Bill, we’ve had one in response. Mr. Parke.”

“The Sponsor yields.”

“I don’t have a clue. All I can tell you is that these kinds of… of financing programs are relatively new and ordinarily, if somebody sold the Oakbrook Shopping Center, Oakbrook would expect to be able to collect a real estate transfer tax. This Bill retains that expectation, so I don’t think we’re talking about raising money, we’re clarifying that the local government’s authority to impose a transfer tax applies whether the form of the transfer is through a conventional mortgage or through a different kind of financing arrangement. That’s all this Bill does.”

“And there is no opposition to the Bill.”

“This is the local real estate transfer tax.” 09300069.doc 15  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“I’m certainly not aware of that. My understanding… We’ve had this Bill twice in committee and there has been no opposition and I… there may have been a question about the Bill as introduced, the Bill has been amended. I believe there is no opposition.”

“This… but this Bill deals with the local and some communities have it and some communities do not.”

Speaker Madigan: “The matter is on the Order of Standard Debate. We’ve had one for the Bill, two in response. The Chair recognizes Representative Slone.”

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman… Mr. Speaker. Will the Lady yield?”

“Sponsor yields.” Slone: Representative Currie, I thought I understood that whether or not this implicated the state level real estate transfer tax when you first spoke, but then when you answered Mr. Parke’s question on it, now I’m not sure I do understand it. It sounds like it authorizes the collection of the tax at the local level with an REIT or some other kind of form of holding the real estate. I guess my question is, do… does the 50… does the dollar a thousand state real estate transfer tax, would it then apply to the… to this change as well as whatever local tax would apply?”

“Let me just double check.”

“Thank you.”

“I think it does. I believe it does. It’s just exactly the same process.”

“Okay.”

“And the idea here is not to raise any taxes at all, but just to make sure that any buyer, no matter the financing, would be subject to the same tax that everybody else is.”

“Okay.” 09300069.doc 17  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“So, an Illinois buyer already is, national or foreign buyers should be subject to the same tax.”

“Okay. So, there is… I think as you discussed with Representative Parke’s… from revenue potential for the State of Illinois for the state portion, right?”

“It is… All this is, is clarifying language which we only need to do because there are these new forms of ownership and the question has been in litigation. We wanna clarify that, yes, it doesn’t matter how you buy it, if you buy it, you are required to pay the transfer tax.”

“At both the state and the local level?”

“Yes.”

“If there is a local tax?”

“Yes. If there is a local.”

“Okay. Thank you. To the Bill. I would certainly ask the support of the Body in this. It’s simply a matter of equal treatment for all types of purchasers and it would make some level of additional funding available for some very important programs that we fund through the existing real estate transfer tax.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 56 ‘yes’ and 60 ‘no’. The Bill shall be put on the Order of Postponed Consideration. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of Senate Bill 852? 852.” 09300069.doc 18  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Mr. Clerk, put the Bill on the Order of Third Reading and read the Bill for a third time.”

“Mr. McAuliffe.”

“The Gentleman moves for the passage of the Bill. Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 108 people voting ‘yes’, 8 people voting ‘no’. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Cross on House Bill 3402 on the Order of Concurrence. Mr. Cross.”

“The Gentleman moves for the passage of the Bill. Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those 09300069.doc 20  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 113 people voting ‘yes’, 3 people voting ‘no’. The House does concur in the Senate Amendments. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of Senate Bill 600? Representative Currie. 600, Senate 600.”

“Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker, and Members of the House. This is the Bill that would increase the state minimum wage, in two steps, from 5.15 to 5.50 an hour January 1, 2004 and to $6.50 an hour January 1, 2005. It also would provide for a statutory 50 cent differential lower wage for youth workers under the age of 18. In other respects, our state minimum wage would stay as it has been with the 40 percent tip credit and so forth. It’s time to raise the work… the value of low-income jobs. If this were 1979, the minimum wage at that time bought about $6.50 an hour in today’s terms. There are 13 other states plus the District of Columbia that have higher minimum wages than the federal. The effort here is to help people out of poverty. We have seen our welfare rolls drop, but we have not seen avenues for low-income people to move themselves from poverty. Most of the people who earn the minimum wage in the state, 450 thousand of them, most of them are grown-ups. The 09300069.doc 21  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 average age of the minimum wage worker is about 30 and a significant number of the people at the minimum wage are single heads of households, it’s the only income they’ve got. Voices for Illinois Children did a study of housing needs across the state and it turns out you’d need to work two minimum wage jobs outside the Chicago metropolitan area in order to afford the minimal rent of an acceptable apartment in the Chicago area four times, four full-time minimum wage jobs would be needed to do the trick. I think it’s time to say that the worker is worthy of his or her hire. We need to help people get out of poverty and become economically self-sufficient. This is one tool available to us. I’d be happy to answer your questions. And I would appreciate your support for this measure.”

“The Lady moves for the passage of the Bill. The Bill is on the Order of Standard Debate. There shall be three for the Bill and three in response. Mr. Rose.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“There was some compromises, further compromises, and changes made to the Bill in the House in committee yesterday.”

“Again, the Bill is on the Order of Standard Debate. There has been one for, one in response. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggins.”

“I wouldn’t say that it’s going to bring a lot of people totally out of the ranks of the poor, but it is a good deal better than $5.15 an hour. In fact, for a family of… of… a person working full-time at 5.15 an hour makes $10,300 a year, well below the poverty level for a family of two, far, far below the Housing and Urban Development very low income level and certainly an increase of a dollar and thirty-five cents an hour will help. This is not a living wage Bill. This does not recognize the reality of the cost of housing and food and shoe leather and clothing for the kids, that a living wage would suggest, that would be more like 12 or 13 dollars an hour, but $6.50 an hour would certainly help the 450 thousand Illinoisans who today are stuck at the 5.15 level.”

“Now, Mr. Parke, let me remind everybody where we are. The Bill is on the Order of Standard Debate.”

“All right.”

“The Bill shall be taken off the Standard Debate. Mr. Winters for five minutes. Winters for five minutes.”

“Representative Mulligan for five minutes.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“So… First of all, I’d remind you that the wages… first of all, there’s a Bill coming over from the Senate to do… increase by a dollar the wages for those workers for whom state reimbursement is available. Second, those wages are above the $5.15 an hour that is the current minimum wage in this state.”

“Mr. Black for five minutes.”

“Mr. Black.”

“Mr. Black.”

“Mr. Black. Mr. Black. Turn on Mr. Black to conclude his remarks.”

“Representative Flowers for five minutes.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill. President Bush just signed a tax relief Bill and 34 million people will be 09300069.doc 32  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 in receipt of a check, except for the poor. The check is not in the mail for them and what are they to do? The utility bills are going up, their rent is due, they need food on the table, they need a roof over their heads with their children. What are they to do? These people are working three part-time jobs to make ends meet. They’re leaving their children home alone because they don’t want welfare. And speaking of welfare, it’s five years and you’re off. What are these people supposed to do? And a mere $6.50 an hour is nothing in comparison to what the rates of things are today. This is a very good Bill. It’s long overdue. And as a matter of fact, I agree with one of the previous speakers. He said, this is not enough, we should give ‘em more. We should give them a living wage. They should be able to at least take care of their families off of the income because… excuse me… because of what they do a lot of people don’t have to do. A lot of people wouldn’t want to do. I appreciate the work that these people do and for that I’d encourage everyone to support Senate Bill 600.”

“Mr. Bost for five minutes.”

“Mr. Delgado for five minutes.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill. This Bill, when we talk about… I would love to see us be able to come to an agreement to have a minimum wage at 10.50, as a previous speaker mentioned. However, we know that it was stated as a facetious comment ‘cause we know that our other side of the aisle, my great colleagues and friends over there, won’t agree to somethin’ like that. And yet, you’re absolutely right, because by the time we get this through, the cost of living continues to go up and so I would love to continue to see that. So, let’s be inclemental (sic- incremental). Let’s start lookin’ at that. Let’s continue to start workin’. And I had known it all about the favorite friends in labor are saying that’s exactly what we want ‘em to hear because that’s the road we gotta go down. Complications of how it’s going to affect a particular industry, a particular way. Well, tell that to those families who continue to make a decision that seven kids have to eat off of one piece of bread. And we know that these complications aren’t the common citizen’s problem, 09300069.doc 35  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 the Illinoisans. It is our problem, our responsibility to help create this self-sufficiency necessary so that we don’t have a dependent society. And someone mentioned, we talk about it only affects the very few? Well, where have you been? Look around you. Every time you drive your Beemer, every time you drive your Infinities, every time you drive all them luxury cars, you walk through and drive through our neighborhoods, there’s a reminder on every corner and I don’t care what part of the state you live in. You can’t put on some rose-colored glasses. We have to continue to try to build Illinois. Aren’t we here to serve our people? So, we talk about a very few would be affected? Excuse me. One-tenth of this population of this country has all the wealth and right now, our President is gonna give ‘em even more money. But what about the few that you continue to talk about? You’re talkin’ about my families, you’re talkin’ about my neighbors. Matter of fact, you’re talkin’ about many of your own neighbors. And I’ll go into your districts and I’ll bring your friends to your houses so you can see and to your offices because apparently we’re being very selective about the letters we’re reading. Where are we on that? Illinois is the hub of America and when my daddy brought me here in 1966 from New Jersey, I remember my teacher telling me that, ‘Willie Delgado’s going to Illinois to where railroads and steel and companies are there and you can make money.’ And I’m glad my father brought me here because we had to eat off of one piece of bread and my snack, I went into the 09300069.doc 36  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 refrigerator. I couldn’t buy… I couldn’t get milk in the refrigerator. I went to the pantry ‘cause I had a box of milk, it was powder that the church gave my family. We had to put our cornflakes in the refrigerator. I thought they were Raisin Bran ‘cause the cockaroaches (sic-cockroaches) were inside our… inside of our cornflakes. So, help me understand. We want to enforce our families and we wanna make them ha… we wanna provide them the dignity, the respect, and the strong family value and a job provides that with a living wage of… at 6.50? I’m agreeing with you. We need to bring it up. But right now, we have to be incremental. But remember, for those friends on the other side, very business conscious. It’s about esteem of a worker. I had a Subchapter S corporation and I took care of my guys because the esteem, the lack of theft, the production worked well for me and today I stand here as a Legislator. When I was a child, who couldn’t de… I had to… couldn’t decide if I can go to school and be in gym ‘cause I couldn’t afford gym shoes ‘cause my brother had to use ‘em.”

“Mr. Delgado, you’re under one minute. You’re under one minute.”

“And so I understand that we have to continue, so we don’t have to look far for those few because some of us were there. Let’s not forget where we have come from. So, let’s make sure that Illinois families… we do create that dignity, respect and a strong family in Illinois. And 09300069.doc 37  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 let’s make sure this thing flies with ‘green’ lights. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

“Representative Colvin for five minutes.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this Bill. Quite frankly, I think it’s probably one of the most important Bills we’re gonna work on this Session. Quite frankly, in my 19 years in the General Assembly, as I sat here, and I’ve seen us work to protect the interests of a lot of people, everyone from horse track… racetrack owners to drycleaners. And someone a lot smarter than me once said that how you protect your most vulnerable citizens says a lot about your democracy, and now we have the opportunity to live up to that challenge. Yeah, this is a tough vote for a lot of people. I think we’ve all heard from business owners, the Chambers of Commerce who said this Bill would be detrimental to them. And one of my colleagues, who I respect very much, on the other side of the aisle, said that Illinois would now have the highest minimum wage in the Midwest. Well, I think that means that Illinois is beginning to show some leadership and take a stand on a very important issue. I think what we do here today will really speaks to what we think about some of our most vulnerable citizens. Minimum wage for many people means maximum effort. We’re talkin’ about people who get up, who are not asking for handouts, who simply wanna earn a living wage to take care of their families, very much in the same way all of us hope to do so. So, I just ask all of my colleagues just to exercise a little common sense 09300069.doc 38  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 and let’s protect the interests of working people, the same people when we’re campaigning that we talk about so much. Let’s protect their interests. Let’s look out for them just one time. I ask everyone to vote ‘aye’ on this Bill. Thank you.”

Speaker Madigan: “The last speaker will be Representative Graham for five minutes. The last speaker, Representative Graham.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill. I am standing here completely upset at some of the statements and comments that were made from my colleagues who are totally out of touch with people who are living on minimum wage. Do I understand you to say, take what I’m already giving you? Go stand in the cheese line. Go stand at the shelters and check out the give away clothes. Is that what I’m understanding you to say? Am I understanding you to say that you have enough to feed your family on. Wait until next year. Wait until some other time when the time is right. The time is now. When we compare ourselves to other states, we are light years behind everybody. We’re at the bottom of the list. Have you sat behind a desk to hear a soc… a person come and seek your social services asking you for help? Have you sat there? Well, my community don’t go gre… won’t go… don’t grow greens and corn in their backyard. I don’t live in a place where I can plant my stuff in the backyard and live off of it. Are you asking them to take their children and get secondhand clothing? Are you gonna take what I already gave you? 09300069.doc 39  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 This is a time to make our stand now and to pass this excellent Bill. I think people are way out of touch with what’s really goin’ on. You know, I don’t have a big family car to drive my children to school. Am I tellin’ them take what I already gave… take what you can get, sweetheart. Go sit down. Are we telling our children, fight for everything that you can get. Go to sco… go to school and to get educated. We don’t want to fund education. We are… It’s not time, don’t do it now, don’t do it now, stay in the poverty lines. It’s outrageous. But we have this statistic problem in our community. I think people are way out of touch. And I think it’s time for a lot of people to bite the bullets, businesses and all. I urge an ‘aye’ vote.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 71 people voting ‘yes’, 45 people voting ‘no’. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk. Mr. Clerk, on the Order of Postpone Consideration there appears Senate Bill 1733. Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker, and Members of the House. We discussed this at length yesterday. This is the natural gas tax on out-of-state purchases with the exceptions for not-for-profit organizations, municipalities, producers of energy and that gas which is used in enterprise zone. It’s 09300069.doc 40  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 time to bring fair play to this taxing structure, buying the tax(sic-gas) instate today you pay a tax, if you buy it from out-of-state, you oughta be required to help foot the bill as well. I would appreciate your ‘aye’ votes.”

“Mr. Parke.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ The Chair recognizes Representative Mulligan.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, 09300069.doc 43  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 there are 62 people voting ‘yes’, 52 people voting ‘no’. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, on the Order of Postpone Consideration there appears Senate Bill 1725. The Chair recognizes Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speakers and Members of the House. Again, we discussed this issue last night. This would decouple the state with respect to estate taxes and restore what we’ve always had in the State of Illinois and that is a tax on the… very substantial estates, a tax that was paid by very few people and to restore the tactic… retain the tax that’ll help us solve our budget hole and make our spending plan possible. I urge your ‘aye’ vote.”

“The Lady moves for the passage of the Bill. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggins.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Sorry?”

“No, I don’t think so. I don’t think so.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, 09300069.doc 44  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 there are 62 people voting ‘yes’, 54 people voting ‘no’. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, on page 18 of the Calendar there appears Senate Bill 1903. What is the status of the Bill?”

“Put the Bill on the Order of Third Reading and read the Bill for a third time.”

“Mr. Clerk, put the Bill on the Order of Second Reading. Mr. Clerk, is the Bill on the Order of Second Reading?”

Speaker Madigan: “Mr. Clerk, take this matter out of the record. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of House Bill 719? I believe it’s on the Order of Concurrence. 719.”

“The Chair recognizes Representative Currie. Representative Currie on 719.”

“I believe we’ve already done the nonconcurrence Motion and I’m not sure the concurrence Motion has yet been filed.”

“Mr. Clerk, what is the status of Senate Bill 1360? 1360.”

“Read the Bill.”

“Mr. McKeon.”

“Sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. A little interruption there. Senate Bill 1360 is what I consider an agreed Bill. The University of Illinois bargaining campus by campus units. It amends the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act that states the sole appropriate bargaining unit for tenured… tenured track faculty at each campus would be all of the… a single unit for all of the facilities within that campus. What this Bill does will… would let each campus independently bargain or select, if they choose to and they all don’t do that, of a bargaining unit of their choice and that the U of I campus College of Medicine, College of Pharmacy, College of Dentistry, College of Law, and College of Veterinary Medicine shall have separate units. Recent discussions with representatives of the University of Illinois resulted in this piece of legislation designed to restore the right for faculty on each campus to make an independent decision on collective bargaining. This particularly has an impact on the university here in 09300069.doc 46  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Springfield in Sangamon County. I’ll gladly answer any questions and urge an ‘aye’ vote.”

“The Gentleman moves for the passage of the Bill. And the Chair recognizes Mr. Parke. Mr. Parke.”

“The Sponsor yields.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“We to… in essence, they had a collective bargaining unit and we took that relationship away from them and said they would have to bargain collectively with the entire system instead of their… the unit that they had…”

“By campus, by campus basis.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 100 people voting ‘yes’, 16 people voting ‘no’. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of Senate Bill 100? I believe it’s on the Order of Postponed Consideration.”

“Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. This is just a straightforward constitutional issue. It isn’t about whether you like judges or you don’t like judges. We swore to uphold the Constitution of the State of Illinois 09300069.doc 48  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 and that Constitution says we may not diminish a judge’s compensation, a judge’s salary during that judge’s term in office. When the co… when the Compensation Review Board proposed a continuing cost-of-living adjustment in executive, judicial, and legislative salaries in 1991, that decision vested in 1991, even though the actual cost-of-living adjustment was to be made in ensuing years. There’s no question that our vote last year to take away that cost-of-living adj… adjustment for the judges violated the constitutional provision, saying that we may not diminish their salaries. I urge your ‘yes’ vote.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen, this matter was fully debated previously and the Chair would suggest that we have one person for the Bill and one person against the Bill. The Chair recognizes Mr. Parke.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by 09300069.doc 49  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Wait, do you wish to vote? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 69 people voting ‘yes’, 40 people voting ‘no’. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, on page 9 of the Calendar there appears Senate Bill 841. What is the status of the Bill?”

“Read the Bill.”

“Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. We discussed this last evening. This is the rolling stock change that is intended to level the playing field between local vehicles and the trucks that travel interstate Illinois. I’d appreciate your support for the measure. It will help us close our budget gap.”

Speaker Madigan: “The matter is on the Order of Standard Debate. There has been one for the Bill. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bost.”

“The record will reflect your statement. On Senate Bill 841, the Chair recognizes Mr. Parke.” 09300069.doc 50  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“The Sponsor yields.”

“That’s what I said.”

“It does. It also provides for an income tax credit for trucking firms depending on their… the number of drivers and mechanics they employ.”

“You know, I had an estimate yesterday, but there were changes in the Bill and so I can’t give you an… a totally accurate figure. They said 92 million yesterday, but I think these changes mean 82 million.”

“I can’t tell you that. I don’t have that number.”

“Yes. It was 92, as originally proposed. With the changes that we’ve made since the Governor’s original proposal, we now believe it will bring in 82 million.”

“Well, as you remember, there were concerns raised by other industries also affected by the original proposal. And as I say, what the effort today is… was to narrow… to level the… the playing field between inter and intra state 09300069.doc 51  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 truck traffic. And in fact, if we just repeal the rolling stock exemption, you could… you would have hit some of these trucks pretty hard. So, this seems to be a proposal that is going to bring in a substantial chunk of change without doing damage to the industry.”

“Once again, the Bill is on the Order of Standard Debate. We’ve had one for, one in response. The Chair recognizes Representative Mulligan.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“So far, so good.”

“Trucks. And there is no rolling stock exemption language in the proposal before us, we used to call it that. It is trucks and what this does is follow the 09300069.doc 53  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Indiana plan, so I can assure you our trucks will not be moving to Indiana, because basically, we’re following their proposal. So, the larger trucks and the smaller trucks will be distinguished. The inter and intra state trucks will be charged different rates so that the local trucks, the ones that ply their trade within Illinois, will not be at a disadvantage compared to those that are primarily interstate in nature. There is also, of course, the income tax credit for the trucking firms, $50 for employee, that includes the drivers as well as the mechanics.”

“It… Yeah, it would. It would if it’s a fleet of buses, yes.”

“But… Yeah, over 8 thousand pounds, they would get the… they’d still get the rolling stock exemption.”

“I don’t know how big they are.” Mulligan: Covers limousines?”

“Yes.”

“And limousines are currently covered, but they would have to show that they do 51 percent of their travel out- of-state, which, of course…”

“They’ll still have the exemption if they are doing… if 51 percent of their business is intra… inter, interstate.”

“Which is what the exemption was, of course, for. It was never for those vehicles that are plying their trade only within the confines of the State of Illinois.”

Speaker Madigan: “The last person in response will be Mr. Tenhouse. This is the last person in response. Mr. Tenhouse.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, 09300069.doc 57  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 there are 60 people voting ‘yes’, 55 people voting ‘no’. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, on the Order of Postponed Consideration there appears Senate Bill 212. Mr. Holbrook.”

“Thank you, Speaker. There was a little confusion on this Bill before, some people thought it may have included the quick-take for Crestwood. That is not in this Bill. That was a Senate Bill, that was not this one. What this Bill will do is it extends the sunset for our Southwest Illinois Development Authority, which we’ve had for 14 years. It extends the sunset for Palatine for their downtown development, and it takes in a new TIF that abuts it where it’s been extended and it allows Clinton County and it’s such a great organization that the surrounding county…”

“Well, I’m sorry.”

“…the surrounding counties are wanting to join it. I would appreciate an ‘aye’ vote. This had about 64 votes before we started taking the record. I would remind everybody, again, this is an extension of the sunset on two of these and inclusion of a new county at their request. It is not Crestwood. It is not Crestwood.”

“Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, could you tell us if…” Davis, S.: “Sponsor yield?”

“…Crestwood is in this Bill?” Davis, S.: “Sponsor yield? Would the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor yields.” 09300069.doc 58  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Davis, S.: “Is there anything in the Bill about Crestwood, Representative?”

“It is not Crestwood.” Davis, S.: “You’re sure about that?”

“No, it’s not Crestwood.” Davis, S.: “Are you sure?”

“No.” Davis, S.: “You’re absolutely positive?”

“I’m absolutely positive there’s no Crestwood.” Davis, S.: “All right. Ladies… To the Bill, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, I would urge an ‘aye’ vote on this. This is essential for the Southwestern Illinois Development Authority to continue with their economic development initiatives. And it’s solely a extension of the sunset and it will help us in the Metro-East region to continue to foster economic development projects. Thank you.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 69 people voting ‘yes’, 47 people voting ‘no’. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, on page 18 of the Calendar there appears Senate Bill 1903. What is the status of the Bill?”

“Mr. Clerk, on page 19 of the Calendar there appears, on the Order of Postponed Consideration, Senate Bill 1754. Mr. Smith.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was some confusion on this Bill, also, the other day. And let me… let me say from the beginning this is not Crestwood. This creates an economic development authority for western Illinois. There is no taxing authority for this. There is no bonding authority, no general obligation bonding authority. It is simply a tool, an economic development tool, for western Illinois. There are no quick-take provisions and no Crestwood. I would ask for your favorable consideration.”

Speaker Madigan: “The matter is on the Order of Standard Debate. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mautino. Mautino.”

“Thank you, Speaker. And I simply rise in support of 1754. We heard this in committee. It had full support and I commend Representative Smith for his work on this legislation. Ask for an ‘aye’ vote. And once again, it doesn’t contain Crestwood at all, I’ve checked.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify by… Mr. Black.”

“We’re just very happy that you don’t burn out.”

“Sponsor yields.” 09300069.doc 60  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“That’s correct, yes.”

“Yes. They have… they have that authority similar to other development authorities that we’ve created, regional development authorities.”

“Representative Black, those are general revenue bonds. They’re not… they’re not… general obligation bonds, I’m sorry and they’re not moral obligation bonds. They’re industrial revenue bonds.”

“Representative Black, it would… it would, you know, depend on the project and I suppose the company or the entity that’s requesting the bonds.” 09300069.doc 61  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“No, it’s not.”

“Another… They’re not limited to that, Representative Black. And again, I would state, this is similar to five other regional development authorities that we have that have been very successful in this type of financing for economic development projects. We’re simply using those as the model to create this for western Illinois and to my knowledge, there have not been any… any problems with those other authorities selling their bonds. I might add, there’s no start-up money for this development authority which some of the others we have created have been given state appropriations for start-up costs.”

“Yes. There are provisions… There are 23 members of the board. They’re ex officio members including the director of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, the director of Central Management Services or their designees. Then there would be public members. Eight who are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate and then one from each of the county board chairmen in the counties covered.”

“That’s right.”

“Yes.”

“I’m sorry. Could you repeat that?”

“Well, that is correct. However, there has to be written approval from the Governor for the issuance of the bonds or any project.”

“Representative Black, that decision would be up to you and I and our colleagues here and over in the Senate, it’s subject to appropriation, just like the other five development authorities that exist currently.” 09300069.doc 64  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“That’s right.”

“Yeah. The board has the authority, you know, to the extent the county might have whatever powers they currently have on zoning or whatever, but as far as the actual…”

“…project going ahead, that would be up to the board or the authority.”

“Mr. Verschoore.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill. I rise in support of this. We have a QCREDA, they call it QCREDA, the Quad City Economic Development Board in our area. It’s a wonderful tool for bringing in business and to ease the previous speaker’s mind, these boards are made up of a devis… a very diverse group of businessmen, labor, people and it has worked well in our area. So, I would encourage everyone to vote ‘yes’ on this. Thank you.”

“The question is, ‘Shall this Bill pass?’ Those in favor signify by voting ‘yes’; those opposed by voting ‘no’. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Has Mr. Sacia voted? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 72 people voting ‘yes’, 44 people voting ‘no’. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, on Supplemental Calendar #1 there appears Senate Bill 735. Representative Currie.”

“Representative Currie.” 09300069.doc 67  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Thank you, Speaker. I’m just checking which Bill this is. Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. This Amendment would provide the changes that the Governor proposed with respect to the membership and the structure of the Illinois Arts Council. I’d be happy to answer your questions and I hope you’ll support this measure, as I do and the Governor does.”

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?”

“Put the Bill on the Order of Third Reading. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill.”

“Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker. This is what I just described in Amendment 1. It reduces the members of the Arts Council, provides for new opportunities for the Governor to appoint and again, his proposed changes with respect to the functioning of that state agency.”

“The Lady moves for the passage of the Bill. The Chair recognizes Mr. Black.”

“Sponsor yields.” 09300069.doc 68  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“No, there was not a drafting error. We appreciate your bringing it to our attention. In the measure that passed yesterday, all of those boards were paid boards. The language the Governor had proposed for the unpaid boards would have provided the hardship exception in every case. There is the travel board and I believe that they do that today for many councils and so forth within State Government. So, that will be there. All this does is to use the Governor’s language. It wasn’t relevant yesterday because the boards at issue were boards where all the members were salaried.”

“Well, thank you. I think I’ve explained it at least the way we understand it.”

“But we appreciate your attention to detail.”

“As always.”

“And I just want to say, our staff is usually right, too, Representative.”

“I believe that it was… it is today a 35-member board and it would become a 21-member board, a 21-member agency of State Government.”

“That is correct.” 09300069.doc 70  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“I don’t believe so.”

“This Bill shall be… Mr. Black, we’re gonna take the Bill out of the record for a time to check your point. And I’d be more than willing to visit your community and to observe that structure if I knew that you were making public speeches inside the building. Mr. Black.”

“Mr. Clerk, House Bill 2750. What is the status of the Bill? 2750.”

“Mr. Hannig.” 09300069.doc 72  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. This is the… I would move that we concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 2750. And this is the FY03 supplemental and trailer Bill that was sent to us from the Senate. Some of the items that are included in the Bill of interest, I think, to the Members include a ’03 supplemental for our state employee group insurance to ensure that our hardworking state employees can have their medical claims paid on a timely basis. We brought the Court of Claims up to speed in this appropriation. All items that were decided by the Court of Claims, as of the date that this Bill came to us, are in this Bill. So there’s been no omissions on the part of anyone who is owed money from the State of Illinois. There’s money that was restored for the industrial training program in DCCA. There’s some money that was restored for the entrepreneurialship centers. And there’s 4 percent COLAs for our DD providers, our MI providers and for the CILA providers. This is commonly called the dollar-per-hour proposal. Mandated categoricals are increased by $31,140,000 and that’s to… and that’s for special education and for special education transportation it’s 26,019,000, so that we’ll fully fund the mandated categorical line for special education. There’s additionally $42,841,000 funded in the… the block grant for the State Board of Education. That’s much of the proposal that I think Members from the suburban part of our state had requested and it’s now part of this spending proposal that we prepare to send to the Governor. So, that’s what’s 09300069.doc 73  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 in the Bill. I’d be happy to answer any questions. I’d ask for your ‘yes’ vote.”

“The Gentleman moves for the passage of the Bill. The Bill is on the Order of Standard Debate. The Bill is on the Order of Standard Debate. We’ve had one for the Bill. Mr. Black, for five minutes.”

“We know that.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Representative, the 75 million from the long-term care provider line is to facilitate the intergovernmental transfer payment arrangement with the county-based nursing homes and this will allow the department to increase the rate for county nursing homes. This is non-GRF items.” 09300069.doc 74  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“No, Representative.”

“It doesn’t refer to that.”

“Representative, that’s within the Department of Corrections. It’s a supplemental, but it doesn’t cost us any additional money. They’re only asking us to rearrange the budget internally.”

“Yes.”

“Representative, it’s in the spending plan that we’ve already passed. And so, I agree with you, every word that you said.”

“Mr. Novak in the Chair.”

“Representative, the issue on the circuit breaker has to do with a waiver that we requested from the Federal Government.”

“We’re still waiting for it. It’s not likely to be here by the time we adjourn, and we simply want to make 09300069.doc 76  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 sure we have enough money in that account should we not get the waiver.”

“To the Bill.”

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

“Your request is granted. Further discussion? The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Daniels.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“You know, Representative, I appreciate you bringing that to my attention. You are correct and I misspoke.”

“And thank you for saying that.”

“Yes. You’re absolutely correct, Representative.”

“I’m advised, Representative, that the effective date is July 1, so that the full… that the 4 percent will be for the full, full year.”

“Yes.”

“Yes, that’s correct.” 09300069.doc 78  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“That’s correct, Representative.”

“To the Bill.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Lady from Peoria, Representative Slone.”

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

“The Gentleman yields.”

“Representative Hannig, I have just some questions about specific aspects of this proposal. This adds $50 million from…”

“Mr. Clerk.”

“Thank you. From the Federal Civil Preparedness Administrative Fund for terrorism preparedness and training. Is that a… Are those federal dollars or are those GRF dollars?”

“Yes, Representative, that’s… that’s federal money.”

“Do we have that in hand or is that promised to us?”

“Representative, it’s… it’s promised to us and so we’ve appropriated it. If it doesn’t arrive, we obviously can’t spend it, but if it does, this will allow us to spend it.”

“Okay. We’re adding just about 22 million for the formula for the foundation level in the formula, right? Is that over and above what we’ve already discussed? 21,800,000 to fulfill $4,560 per pupil.”

“The…”

“That’s over and above what we already passed to fund that. Is that right?”

“Oh, yes, Representative. I found what you wished. Yeah, that’s so that we can fund ’03, the monies that we promised the schools when we were here last year at this time and we passed a budget. So, this would…” 09300069.doc 80  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Is that for the twenty-third and twenty-fourth payments or some other thing?”

“It… That’s what it will allow… it will ensure that those are made, yes. So, with this amount of money in the supplemental, the extra 21,800,000, it will fulfill our obligation at $4,560 per student. Without… without this, the state would come up short at the end of the fiscal year because of some calculation errors that were made by the state board.”

“Okay. There is $15 million in here for the ethanol plants. Is that pursuant to legislation that we’ve already passed this spring?”

“Yeah. I think, the 15 was in the spending Bill that we… we passed, I believe.”

“It says DCEO.”

“Pardon me?”

“It says for DCEO. Is this already passed or is this within this supplemental?”

“When we passed the spending Bill early… earlier we did include the money you spoke of.”

“Okay.”

“So, it’s already passed.”

“So, this money’s already…”

“On the Governor’s desk.”

“Already on the Governor’s desk. Similarly, I’m… I’m interested in these higher education grants. There’s one for access and diversity for half a million dollars that’s proposed. That would be in this Bill, right?” 09300069.doc 81  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“We’re restoring the HECA grants to the ’03 level, Representative, with this additional money of 500 thousand.”

“Okay. On the inspector general, maybe you explained this in presenting the Bill, Mr. Hannig, but there’s the fee… the entire $4 million for the inspector general is new funds. Is that correct?”

“Yes, that’s new, Representative.”

“And we’re gonna pay for that with the revenue Bills that we passed earlier today, right?”

“It’s gonna come out of our General Revenue Fund, that’s correct.”

“Okay. For 0… for fiscal ’04?”

“For ’04. Yes.”

“Thank you, Mr. Hannig.”

Speaker Novak: “Further discussion? The Gentleman from Whiteside, Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell.” Mitchell, J.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor yields.” Mitchell, J.: “Representative Hannig, did I hear you say that we are fully funding categoricals or a portion of those? Could you go over that one more time with… on the education portion?”

“Okay. For the special education categoricals, for the mandated categoricals for special ed and special ed transportation we will be…“

“Mr. Hannig.” 09300069.doc 82  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Yeah. For those two items, we… this Bill will allow us to fund them at 100 percent of the statutory rate, as Representative Black would want us to say.” Mitchell, J.: “All right, yeah. And basically, the state’s promised share.”

“Fully funded, as most of us would say.” Mitchell, J.: “Yeah. Now, does that include the salaries of special education teachers, the 8 thousand per teacher?”

“It includes… Yes, it includes the… those items laid out in statute.” Mitchell, J.: “Okay. So… so, basically those two and then approximately how much is going into the… the reading improvement block grant or the ADA block grant?”

“Forty-two million eight hundred and forty-four thousand.” Mitchell, J.: “Okay.”

“Almost 43 million.” Mitchell, J.: “And that will be divided up with all in… throughout all districts according to your average daily attendance?”

“Right. It’s a per capita…” Mitchell, J.: “Okay.”

“…head count.” Mitchell, J.: “Mr. Speaker, to the Bill.”

“To the Bill.” Mitchell, J.: “I just personally wanna thank the Governor of the state for reaching out to our side of the aisle when we made inquiries and working with us to implement a plan that 09300069.doc 83  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 would augment what he saw as the education portion of this budget. It was very important to the Republican Caucus that we have an opportunity to have dialogue with Governor Blagojevich and our Leaders certainly did that. He came back and said, ‘you know, I think you’ve got something here and we’ll see if we can find the money.’ We then got the opportunity to look at that money and decide at where it would best help all school districts. In that regard, I certainly appreciate the fact that he’s done so. There’s always a however and the however for me basically is I still don’t feel that we’re paying the bills that our district superintendents have sent to us. There are… there are still mandated categoricals out there that our districts are going to get hit with a 91 percent rather than a hundred percent of the cost that they have. Regretfully, I can’t vote for this Bill, but I certainly don’t want to encourage anyone else to follow my lead. Vote your heart, vote your conscience. Look at the printouts. If your districts are getting tremendous help out of it, sobeit. Again, I wanna thank the Governor and thank Leader Cross for working very hard with the Education Committee to get additional funds. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

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

“Sponsor yields.” 09300069.doc 84  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“I’m not aware that it’s earmarked for anything, Representative.”

“It’s for the agency to make grants to… to the… throughout the state, Representative. I don’t know that it’s earmarked. It’s certainly not line itemed. If you have…“

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

“I would say that’s the way to characterize it, Representative.” 09300069.doc 85  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Right. We’re just trying to cover our bases in case we don’t get the ruling from the feds that we like and that we can continue services at… to the senior citizens that we wish to serve.”

“Yes, Representative, this would provide for 4 percent COLA for the DD providers, the MI providers, and the CILA provider. CIL, excuse me. And that would be effective July 1, should the Governor sign this budget.”

“Representative, it’s at $960 thousand and it’s not in GRF, but it’s in… it’s in the budget in a non-GRF fund.”

“Yes, Representative, that’s correct.”

“Representative, we’re not certain that that’s in the Amendment. Maybe you could… you could help us by pointing.”

“We…”

“Yeah, I… We don’t believe that we made any change in that, but that was our analysis when the Bill came over.”

“Representative, what page of the Bill is that on? If you could…“

“Page… Okay, I’m on page 100 and now, what… which… which line.”

“Tobacco Settlement Recovery Fund. Okay. That was in the original Bill and this doesn’t change it, Representative.”

“Yes, Representative.”

“Further discussion? Mr. Miller.”

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

“Sponsor yields.”

“I just have a… Thank you. I just have a quick question, Representative, on the educational funding portion of it. Was that subject to… Were there any changes from the Bill that we passed out over to the Senate in regards to funds being appropriated as far as the DHS count or the… as far as the DHS count is concerned?”

“No, Representative. There was no increase or decrease in that item.” 09300069.doc 88  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“How about the allotment of where those funds could or should go depending on its… basically, it is the same?”

“This is… this is the spending Bill and the dollars are unchanged, Representative.”

“Okay. Thank you.”

“Any further discussion? Mr. Hannig to close.”

“Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the fine work that the Governor’s Office has had in helping us craft this Bill. I thank the Republican side of the aisle for their input and working with us closely on the Bill. And I’d ask for your ‘yes’ vote.”

“The Gentleman now moves that the House concur in Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 2750. All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. Voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Chapa LaVia. Mr. Cultra. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 107 voting ‘yes’, 9 voting 0 (sic-‘no’), 0 voting ‘present’. And the House does concur in Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 2750 and is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1903, the Lady from Cook, Majority Leader Currie. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

"Representative Currie on the Amendment.” 09300069.doc 89  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. This is the measure that would increase fees for various services, create some fund transfers to the tune of 284 million and charge back to individual agencies the cost of central services for them. The three items together, the fee increases, and we’re looking basically, at fees that have not been changed in many years. Trying to reach the national average would bring in 326 million, 284 million from the fund transfers, and 422 million from administrative charge backs. I’d be happy to answer your specific questions, but if I were to read each and every item that’s in this Bill we would certainly miss our May 31 midnight deadline.”

"And on that Motion, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Parke.”

"Any further discussion? Representative Currie to close.”

“Thank you, Speaker. This fills a one point…”

"Excuse me… excuse me, Representative. Mr. Mathias.”

"Do you… do you have an inquiry?” 09300069.doc 91  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

"Sponsor will yield.”

“I don’t believe so. I’m asking staff to double check, but I don’t believe so.”

“No, that is not in this Bill. Yeah… yeah, I think what you’re referring to is a clerical error in which the state overpaid the Local Government Distributive Fund, and that may be… that error may be cleaned up in a different Bill, but not this one.”

"Mr. Hoffman.”

“I request a Roll Call.”

"Your request is granted. Representative Currie to close.”

“Thank you. This will help us with our budget gap, more than a billion dollars here without pain. This is not a tax increase, this isn’t going to hurt anybody. Using money from funds that is not currently being used, bringing fees for various occupational and other activities in line with what’s happening in other states. I think that this will work well to protect the vulnerable, to protect the human services, to protect the spending Bill that just now 09300069.doc 92  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 was overwhelming supported by the Members of this chamber. Please vote ‘yes’.”

"The Lady now moves that the House adopt Floor Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 1903. 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 61 voting ‘yes’, 54 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And the Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

Speaker Novak: "Third reading. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

"Representative Currie.”

“Thank you. You’ve heard the Bill, please vote ‘yes’.”

"The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1903 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 62 voting ‘yes’, 54 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1903 is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of Senate Bill 735?”

“Excuse me, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Molaro, for what reason do you rise, Sir?”

“Inquiry of the Chair.”

“State your inquiry, Sir.”

“I don’t know if it was coffee you were drinking today. You’re like a Major League umpire. I don’t care if you have the outside strike or not as long as you’re consistent. Now, are you gonna always be saying, take the record real quick like that so I know whether or not I have time to, you know, if that’s the way you’re always gonna be, I have no problem. It’s when you’re slow and then fast that I’m not sure. So, are you gonna be a little quick the rest of the day, just so I know?”

“We’re gonna try to be consistent.”

“Thank you, Sir.”

“You’re welcome. Mr. Stephens, for what reason do you rise?”

“State your inquiry.”

Speaker Novak: “It’s my understanding they are, but we’ll double check.”

“Yeah. I got a couple hours of sleep.”

“Thank you.” 09300069.doc 94  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

Speaker Novak: “Yes, we can. I have been advised, Mr. Stephens, that it’s on the system. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of Senate Bill 735?”

“Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. I believe this is the Bill we were discussing a few minutes ago, everybody’s favorite state agency, the Illinois Arts Council.”

“Yes.”

“And we took it out of the Bill for a record just to have a second look. We think the Bill is in good form and we’d appreciate your support to do what the Governor proposed to do, an item that did not… did not find itself included in the small changes that we did make yesterday in boards, commissions and other agencies.”

“Thank you. Is there any discussion? Mr. Black.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“Representative Currie.”

“Thank you. I don’t think there’s a problem. This is an agency in the executive branch and that that just refers to the title of the Bill. And I hope that you’ll join me and Representative Black in voting ‘yes’ for Senate Bill 735.”

“Mr. Black.”

“Thank you.”

“Would you like to join me as a principal Sponsor?”

“Clerk, is it possible to add Representative Black to this fine Bill about this excellent agency of State Government?”

“Mr. Clerk, would you plea… please, please add Mr. Black as a Sponsor.”

“We will… House Rules insist that.”

“We’ll have to take that under advisement, Mr. Black.”

“Thank you. Is there any further discussion? The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 735 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. Voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the 09300069.doc 97  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 record. On this question, there are 116 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 735 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1680, on page 18, the Lady from Iroquois, Representative O’Brien. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Third Reading. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill.”

“Representative O’Brien.”

“Is there any discussion? Mr. Black.”

“Sponsor will yield.”

Speaker Novak: “Any further discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1680 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 115 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1680 is hereby declared passed. Mr. Brosnahan, Senate Bill 1621. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please. Out of the record. Senate Bill 1740, Mr. Clerk. Representative Currie. There’s been a Motion filed to reconsider the vote. Representative Currie.”

“I move we reconsider the vote by which Senate Bill 1740 lost.”

“The question is, ‘Shall the vote on Senate Bill 1740 be reconsidered?’ On… ‘Shall the House reconsider the vote by which Senate Bill 1740 lost?’ 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 72 voting ‘yes’, 42 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And the House does reconsider the vote 09300069.doc 101  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 on Senate Bill 1740. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill. Senate Bill 1740. Mr. Clerk, take this Bill out of the record. On page 22 of the Calendar, Senate Bill 910 on the Order of Concurrence. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill. Mr. Davis.” Davis, S.: “Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I would move to concur in Senate Amendment 1 on House Bill 910. What Senament… what the Amendment does is simply allows the EPA to expedite the review process for corrective actions performed under the RCRA laws that are current… Currently, people can voluntarily clean up… clean up Brownfield sites on our next… on an expedited basis and they pay a fee to the EPA. This allows ‘em to do it under a RCRA law, under the federal RCRA Code. And I would be happy to answer any questions on the Amendment.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Davis now moves that the House adopt… concur in Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 910. 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’, 0 voting ‘no’, 1 vosing… 1 voting ‘present’. And the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 910 and having reached the required majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, Senate Bill 1901, read the Bill.”

“Representative Currie on the Amendment.”

“Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. This Amendment came out of the… the State Government Administration Committee this morning. It’s an attempt to correct some of the errors, the constitutional flaws, in the Governor’s reorganization executive orders 9, 10, 11, and 12. I’d be happy to answer your specific questions. And I’d appreciate your support for the Amendment.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the Lady now moves that the House adopt Floor Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 1901. All those in favor say ‘aye’; opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

Speaker Novak: “Third Reading. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Representative Currie.”

“The Amendment became the Bill and that’s all it does. So, I’d appreciate your support.”

“Is there any discussion? Mr. Parke.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“All this does is to make some changes in those executive reorganization orders. And I think all it intends to do is to make sure that the Governor doesn’t, for example, make changes in the personnel status of code department employees which he’s not permitted to do by executive order, nor is he entitled to infringe the authority of either the auditor general or the attorney general. So, this merely corrects the errors that we identified, that you identified, your crack staff, as well as Senate staff and the Governor’s Office recognized when they crafted those initial orders.”

Speaker Novak: “Any further discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1901 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. 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 86 voting ‘yes’, 29 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1901 is hereby declared passed. Mr. Black.”

“Yes, Sir.”

Speaker Novak: “I won’t comment on that, Mr. Black. Mr. Black.”

“State your… state your point, Sir.”

“Happy birthday, Alison. Mr. Clerk, House Bill 1031 on a Concurrence Motion. Mr. McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy.”

“Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 1031, I move to concur in Senate Amendment #1. Senate Amendment #1 makes House… makes House Bill 1031 exactly as House Bill 2531 which passed this chamber by a vote of 111-1-4. This basically adds three things to the permissive part of the State Employees Group Insurance Act that they can negotiate for. It adds hearing evaluations, hearing aids, the dispensing and fitting of hearing aids to the list of two or three other things that is permissive as far as their negotiations for their contract. We did pass this overwhelmingly. And I would appreciate your ‘aye’ vote on the concurrence.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Amendment #1 be concurred into House Bill 1031?’ And all… all those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all 09300069.doc 105  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk… Mr. Wirsing. Mr. Dunkin. Take the record. On this question, there are 114 voting ‘yes’, 1 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 1031. And having reached the required Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. McCarthy.”

“I’m ready for my next one.”

“Mr. McCarthy.”

“I thought we were on the Order of Concurrence and I have another one about seven numbers down that I’m ready to progress on it, if you’re ready.”

“You should not be so presumptuous. On page 19 on the Calendar, on the Order of Concurrences, there is House Bill 294. Representative Osterman on the Concurrence Motion.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I’d like to move to concur on Amendment #4 to House Bill 294. This is a measure that will increase the income eligibility for child care in the State of Illinois. Something that’s been worked on in this Body for many years and in this Session has been negotiated with support from all four caucuses. And it’s a very important piece of legislation. I’d ask for support on this Bill.”

“Thank you. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the Gentleman now moves that the House shall concur… House shall concur in Senate Amendments #4 to House Bill 294. All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote 09300069.doc 106  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Parke. Mr. Acevedo. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 115 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And the House does concur in Senate Amendments #4 to House Bill 294. And having reached the required Majority, is hereby declared passed. On page 22 of the Calendar, on the Order of Concurrences, there’s House Bill 954. The Gentleman from Will, Mr. Meyer, on a Concurrence Motion. Mr. Meyer.”

“Is there any discussion? The Gentleman now moves that the House concur in Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 954. 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 115 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 954. And having reached the required Majority, is hereby declared passed. On page 20 of the Calendar is House Bill 318 on a Motion to Nonconcur. Representative Yarbrough. Thank you.”

“That’s a nonconcurrence?”

Speaker Novak: “Yes, this is a Motion to Nonconcur, Representative.”

“Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to nonconcur with the Amendment, the Senate Amendment #1.”

Speaker Novak: “The Lady moves to nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall the House nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 318?’ All those in favor say ‘aye’; all those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. And the House nonconcurs in Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 318. On page 22 of the Calendar, on the Order of Concurrences, there is House Bill 983. The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Lang on the Concurrence Motion.” 09300069.doc 108  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, I move concurrence with Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 983. It’s a very technical change in the law dealing with the labeling of Kosher food. I would ask your support.”

Speaker Novak: “Is there any question? Seeing none, the Gentleman now moves that the House concur in Senate Amendments #1 to 983. 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 115 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, and 0 voting ‘present’. And the House does concur in Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 983. And having reached a Majority, is hereby declared passed. On page 23 of the Calendar, on the Order of Concurrences, there is House Bill 988. The Lady from Iroquois, Representative O’Brien.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the Lady now moves that the House concur in the Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 988. All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all 09300069.doc 110  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Currie. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 114 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 1 voting ‘present’. And the House does concur in the Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 988. And having reached the required majority, is hereby declared passed. The Supplemental Calendar #2 there is House Bill 721. The Lady from Cook, Majority Leader Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. I’d move that the House do concur in Senate Amendments 1 and 2 to House Bill 721. This would permit the modernization plan for O’Hare Airport to move forward. That would be the plan that’s going to create a hundred and ninety-five thousand new jobs without requiring any state or local taxpayers to be involved. The measure does several things. First, it says that except for major changes in the purposed configuration of the airport, the city will not need approval from the State Department of Transportation to proceed. It permits the city to acquire property for the purposes of the O’Hare expansion, but it does so with quick-take available only when it comes to the actual footprint of the… of the proposed airport. It lets the city create a reimbursement fund of $20 million, which can be doled out over a six-year period to local governments that are adversely affected because of the loss of property values when the city takes property. It does subject all the contracts, all the activity at O’Hare to the city ordinances that require that 50% of the workforce must be 09300069.doc 111  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 city residents and establishes affirmative action requirements for both the contractor and workers at the project. And the… it does require the city to report to the Department of Transportation, which will report to us, and also directly to us every six months on the success it is achieving with respect to reaching its affirmative action goals. And finally, as the measure came to us from the Senate the Amendment creates… Senate Amendment 2 creates the O’Hare Modernization Project Advisory Committee to review and monitor the utilization of minority-owned business enterprises, women-owned business enterprises, the employment of women and minorities during the course of the project. That committee, advisory in nature, has thirteen members; seven selected by the mayor, two by the Speaker of the House, two by the President of the Senate, one by the Minority Leader of the House, and one by the Minority Leader of the Senate. That’s the program. It’s an important project, not just for northeastern Illinois, it is a project that is critical to the economic well-being across the State of Illinois. I’d be happy to answer your questions and I’d appreciate your support.”

“Thank you. Is there any discussion? Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Miller.”

“Will the Sponsor… Inquiry of the Chair?”

“State you inquiry, Sir.”

“How many votes will this need for approval? For adopt…” 09300069.doc 112  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“We will take your request under advisement and get back to you as soon as we can, Mr. Miller.”

“Thank you. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Representative Currie, is this the same as the Senate Bill… Amendment #9 on Senate Bill 802, except for the clause for the advisory council?”

“Yes, 12… it was Amendment 12 that had been filed to House Bill… Senate Bill 802.”

“Okay.”

“So, 8, 12, and plus the advisory council which was not filed in the House.”

“All right. In the… I just wanted to make sure with our analysis here I don’t have anything different that might be… and correct me if I do. First, that it says that the City of Chicago must receive… it eliminates the requirement for the City of Chicago to receive approval from the state for construction of the airport. My understanding of that is the fact that based on the O’Hare Modernization Plan is the fact that if the state will no longer have any authority in regards to any plan dealing with O’Hare… the reconfiguration of the runways.”

“The state will continue to have a monitoring responsibility and an oversight responsibility, but the state would not have veto power unless the plan itself, the proposed configuration, changed more than three degrees. And the rationale is that…”

“…more than three what?” 09300069.doc 113  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Degrees, that is to say if the picture… I mean picture the picture and if the configuration of the runways were to shift in any significant degree then the state would resume its veto power. But the reason for taking the veto power from the state is that this is a huge, lengthy project and that you can’t start it without knowing that you’ll be able to finish it. So, in order to have that security, the Governor agreed with the mayor that it was important to make it clear from the very beginning that this is not something that’s gonna stop halfway through construction.”

“Okay. The… I’m gonna get to a comment you’d made what’s inquired in the Bill in regards to compensation for districts for that region around the expansion of O’Hare being compensated for their… for their potential losses based on their school districts. Does… where is that… where is that money coming from?”

“That’s going to be coming from airport fees that are collected by the city, so it will not cost the taxpayers of the state, it will not cost the taxpayers of Chicago.”

“Well, I would beg to differ and it does cost taxpayers considering if they do use the airport. Are you con… are you saying… your reference is towards the passenger facility charge that is charged, is that where the funds for the up to $20 million is coming from?”

“It could use the facility fee, it could use other fees that are collected at O’Hare.”

“Well what, if you could, just please describe a little bit more in-depth these other fees?” 09300069.doc 114  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Parking fees for example, I think that the Bill is open-ended on the question of which airport fees the city could use to fund this reimbursement for local governments in the path of the construction project. But they will be airport fees. Specifically, property taxes from Chicagoans, or state taxes would not be available for this purpose.”

“Okay. I just wanna be clear on the passenger facility charge portion. It sounds like, at least that I was told, was the fact that the compensation towards areas in that region is an amalgamation of these fees and so to me it kind of needs to be some clarity on which fees is coming from what, to pay for what. The passenger facility charge, for those in this chamber who do not know, has specific requirements for it to be utilized in O’Hare… in airport… in regional use of airports and so it’s very important that we know exactly who’s picking up the tab on these fees and where they’re coming from to accommodate those who may witness potential loss.”

“Nontax revenues generated at airports owned by the city.”

“I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you?”

“I’m just quoting the direct language from the Bill. So, the money for this reimbursement shall be paid exclusively from nontax revenues generated at airports owned by the city.”

“Okay. Now, is the passenger facility charge a nontax revenue?” 09300069.doc 115  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Or I would imagine parking fees could be included, as well. I’m sure there are other fees that I don’t even know about.”

“Well, I guess, if we’re giving a tax incentive to those around the O’Hare expansion then at least I think it’s… at least reasonable to ask where and who are these fees coming from and who’s paying for ‘em?”

“Right and that’s why I wanted just to underscore that we are not… we, the State of Illinois, we’re not paying for these ourselves out of general funds or any other and the city of… the citizens of Chicago are not paying for this either.”

“But I guess my question centers on the fact that these passenger facility charges are due for… are to be spent by FAA regulation on specific things. And so you cannot use these charges to help out school districts for instance.”

“And in fact…”

“They were… they were first initiated, as you may know, from Mayor Daley’s first proposal at Lake Calumet back in 1990.”

“And in fact the language specifically limits their use to the extent that they would be limited by federal language. But there are, I think are other fees that are charged as well, a storage fees for airplanes, hangers. Those would not count, of course, as passenger facility fees ‘cause they aren’t and I would think those monies would be available to meet this obligation.” 09300069.doc 116  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“But this… there’s nothing in this language that specifies on what is paying for what and when… and where those fees are going. Is that correct?”

“It is specific in that they can only come from fees of the airports owned by the city and they can only by paid to the extent that there are property taxes lost to the communities because the city has purchased the property and taken land.”

“Okay. As far as the quick-take provision is concerned in this legislation, I know there are Members that have some concern about that in addition to… and to that. As far as… it’s my understanding is the fact that… is that the City of Chicago is basically taking land in another municipality in development of this plan.”

“There will be quick-take authority for the footprint of O’Hare, I’m sure you’ve all seen the picture, what the city believes it needs in order to be able to construct the runways. There will be no quick-take authority beyond those boundaries even if the Federal Aviation Administration says that additional land is needed for buffer zones for safety purposes.”

“I guess… Represen…”

“In that event the city will have the power of eminent domain, but this legislation does not give the city quick-take authority in territory beyond the actual configuration of the newly constructed O’Hare field.”

“Representative Currie, what is the… what is the preclusion of the fact… what if there is not enough land 09300069.doc 117  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 that’s in O’Hare Modernization Plan that something needs to be changed? According to the language that the quick-take authority would give the City of Chicago unprecedented powers to be able to take that land to expand that’s just something that may have just been shortsighted on. Is that, I believe, that’s what in this language?”

“As I say, we have the drawing, we have the picture of what the expectation is about the new runway at O’Hare. That configuration would be included in the territory that the city would have quick-take authority to buy, anything outside of that would not be available to the city by quick-take, although the city would have eminent domain to take those properties if necessary, if the FAA for example, said it was important to add to a buffer zone for safety purposes.”

“As far as the plan is concerned, I believe, is there any language dealing with soundproofing of the region of the expansion?”

“I’m sorry, could you repeat that?”

“Soundproofing of the near O’Hare expansion?”

“No, there isn’t. There is a soundproofing program, of course, in place and I assume it would apply if there were need for soundproofing after the end of this project.”

“Okay. Environmental study and as far as where in relationship to this being approved, aviation expansion typically has to be approved by the FAA… has to be approved by the FAA in addition to an environmental study… impact study has to be done. And in your knowledge does the City 09300069.doc 118  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 of Chicago, have that been completed? And if not, where are they with that process?”

“I know they’re in the process of the FAA review and I’m not certain whether the environmental impact study has begun or whether that happens after FAA approval. But those things will happen, you’re totally right. They will have to have FAA approval and they will have to meet the standards of an environmental impact statement.”

“Assuming the fact that…”

“In fact, they… I’m told they did… they have recently started the environmental impact studies.”

“Now, what would happen if FAA is not approved in regards to the… this plan?”

“Well, if the FAA doesn’t approve the plan, it’s back to the drawing boards. The expectation is that the FAA will likely ask for some modifications, the expectation is that the FAA will approve a plan.”

“But unfortunately, then or fort… then the circumstances dictate that the state does not have any authority over that… over the plan or any adjustments that the FAA may indicate according to this legislation.”

“But I think what I said is if there is a difference of more than three degrees in the construction picture, footprint, then state veto authority would be restored. So, if there’s a major change in this plan either because the city changes its mind or the FAA changes it for them, then the State Department of Transportation would be restored its veto power.” 09300069.doc 119  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“As far as… and I’ll wind up my comments ‘cause I know others wish to speak on this. You had said that the economic engine on this would be approximately…? And what is the cost of the O’Hare expansion?”

“$6.6 billion, a hundred and ninety-five thousand new jobs.”

“Okay. To the Amendment.”

“To the Amendment.”

“When we talk about aviation here in the State of Illinois, historically the state has had the responsibility…”

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

“Thank you. We will… was the inquiry to the Chair?”

Speaker Novak: “We will issue a ruling after all the individuals seeking recognition have spoken…”

“Okay.”

“…which will be quite a while.”

“I’ll tell ya what, I’ll end my closing comments if this Amendment’s adopted then. Thank you.”

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

“Sponsor yields.”

“I’m sorry.” 09300069.doc 120  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“No final determination, there have been some comments from the FAA on different aspects of the plan…”

“… different departments look at different things. There are some contradictory comments that have come from…”

“That is correct.”

“That study has begun.”

“None has been completed.”

“I’m sorry, which portion?”

“No, it is there, Representative, and in fact, the program becomes $20 million over a six-year period. So, the ante goes up by 5 million.”

“Well… I… no, I believe this part says that if there is a property tax loss on a particular parcel, the city will make up that difference, that it shall not have to double pay, so that if there is…”

“Right.”

“So reduced if there actually are taxes coming in from that property.” 09300069.doc 122  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Well anytime, as I understand it, anytime a public entity rents to a nonexempt…”

“…entity, that becomes a leasehold…”

“…tax rather than a property tax.”

“Well, I wouldn’t think it’s that quick, myself. I mean first of all, I imagine, in fact I’m quite sure that the city will be offering to buy property, something that it’s not now able to do by virtue of a court injunction…”

“…in the City of Bensenville even when people are trying to sell their properties to O’Hare, they’re not allowed to.”

“So, that will be the first thing that happens.”

“But there’s no language here permitting annexation, so I don’t think that…”

“That is not the city’s plan.”

“It could happen, but it won’t.”

“What?”

“That will not be done.”

“That is my understanding, Representative.”

Speaker Novak: “Representative Krause, please conclude your remarks, your five minutes is up.”

“I understand.” 09300069.doc 124  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Are you… are you making a request that this be taken off Standard Debate?”

“Mr. Parke.”

“Okay. The request is granted. Representative Krause.”

“Excuse me. One second, Rep… Mr. Acevedo, for what reason do you rise?”

“Inquiry of the Chair.”

“State your inquiry.”

“You have some people speaking on the Bill ten minutes and then the five minutes a timer’s put on. Are we gonna be limited to five minutes each?”

“The request has been made and granted to take this off Standard Debate. It’s on unlimited debate, as I understand it.”

“So, everyone’s gonna be able to speak on this?”

“Everyone who wants to speak on it.”

“Okay.”

“Representative Krause.” 09300069.doc 125  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“No, I would…”

“I would ask…”

“Representative Currie.”

“Yeah, I would ask the Chair to accede to Representative Krause’s request. I would ask to give her an extended opportunity to…”

“Yes, I wo… it’s been granted.”

“Yes, I see it. Yes.”

“There is nothing specific, but I’ve been assured by the project managers that they intend to proceed with sensitivity and with reason.”

“I said, there’s nothing specific on that question, but I have been assured by the project managers that they tend to proceed with respect for the communities that are adjacent with sensitivity and with reason. And should there be difficulties, if this project is to, as we say get off the ground, then I would be more than happy to work with you to see if we can make sure that the city meets that commitment.”

“Well, I was thinking, for example, of other sections in the Bill that say, that but for issues of property dispute, legal actions would be in a particular venue, in Cook County. My guess is they wouldn’t have used the legal 09300069.doc 127  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 impediments language in this section if they’d been able to think of all the ones that might have been out there when they were drafting certain other specific parts of the Bill.”

“Couldn’t do what? I’m sorry, say it again.”

“As I say, I suspect they were trying to cover bases they couldn’t specify, but for example, if there were a change in the Membership of the General Assembly, the Governor’s Office and suddenly people decided they wanted to challenge the authority granted in this Bill to move forward on this project, they would want some opportunity to, because the certainty is so important here to have a leg to stand on in a court of law. And I think that might be the kind of thing they had in mind.”

“Ms. Krause, bring your remarks to a close, please. You’ve had ample time.”

“Thank you, Ma’am. I just want to remind the Body, there are 20 people seeking recognition. And pursuant to House Rule 52(a)(4), even though this was put on unlimited debate, each Member seeking recognition will be allowed five minutes. The next speaker is Representative Pankau, the Lady from DuPage. Representative Pankau.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“It stopped in the House with 12, but the Senate added language that was not in either 8,9, or 12 and that was the creation of the advisory committee.” 09300069.doc 130  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“That wasn’t in the…”

“Okay.”

“Right.”

“There was a further refinement in the quick-take provision clarifying where York Road fits in or out of that designation. So, the quick-take was further narrowed. The compensation fund, which when last we met in committee, was 15 million over a period of five years is now 20 million over a period of six years. So, those were two changes that had been made beyond the Amendment that was approved in Executive Committee in our chamber last week.”

“Yes, but the quick-take was further narrowed. There was one other change. So, and in addition, I was talking about the fund to reimburse local schools for property tax loss. Originally, that whole fund was predicated on an overall loss in equalized assessed valuation. In the version that came to us from the Senate, the loss would be predicated on a loss parcel by parcel, making it easier for 09300069.doc 131  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 a local community to access the dollars that are in that fund…”

“…from a local school district.”

“Yes, if they are in the footprint.”

“That’s right and there was a further narrowing of the quick-take area in the version of the Bill that came back to us from the Senate.”

“No quick-take.”

“No quick-take.”

“Right.”

“That… what we talked about then is in this Bill.”

“Yeah, I don’t think that’s a final recommendation from the FAA, Representative…”

“…but should there be… should there be a significant change…”

“That change… that change would trigger veto authority for the Executive Branch of Illinois for the Illinois Department of Transportation.”

“Right. That’s right.”

“That’s right.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Biggins.”

“Sponsor yiel…”

“Yeah, there is language having to do with cemeteries and I’m trying to find the specific reference. Okay. I don’t see a specific reference to the Religious Freedom Res… I’m sorry, you’re right. There is an Amendment, says, ‘nothing in this Act limits the authority of the City of Chicago to exercise its powers under the O’Hare Modernization Act for the purposes of relocation of cemeteries or the graves located therein.’”

“Yes, there ha…”

“Yes, there has been. The city worked closely with the Jewish Federation, with the Catholic Conference, with others to make sure that this language was acceptable. And as you know, it has long been the public policy that a public works project would be grounds… could be grounds for removal of a cemetery and that’s exactly all that this says. So, it does it not invade the principles of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” 09300069.doc 134  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“The religious organizations, Jewish Federation, Catholic Conference are not opposed to the Bill.”

“That is not… I believe that is not accurate.”

“Well, that’s a surprise to me, I thought that they were all assuaged with this language.”

“An earlier ver…”

“An earlier version had seem…”

“…had seemed to invade the principle of RFRA and this language does not.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Millner.” 09300069.doc 135  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

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

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

“Sponsor will yield.”

“Representative, as you can see I’m one of the chief cosponsors and I’m very supportive of your legislation, but I do wanna ask you a question about one issue that some people have brought to me. It’s the issue of these cemeteries. So, as I understand it there are two cemeteries in the footprint of the new O’Hare and these gravesites are going to be moved. What will that mechanism be? And for legislative intent, can you let us know what the city’s intention is relative to reimbursing the families?”

“Okay. First… first of all, let me just point out that it’s long settled law that a public works project can dislodge a cemetery and cause reinterment in another location. The city’s plan is to work with the cemetery operators and the families to find a suitable alternate site. It’s my understanding that the city is prepared to 09300069.doc 138  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 bear the cost of the relocation. And is my understanding that the language in the Bill is acceptable to the religious communities because it does not invade the principle of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

“And so when you say the cost, you mean all the cost, it won’t cost the families anything?”

“That’s my understanding. That’s my understanding.”

“All right. Thank you, Representative. To the Bill, Mr. Speaker.”

“To the Bill.”

“Thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen, we’ve heard a lot of talk on the floor already about the issues that people wanna raise relative to this Bill, and of course, they have a right to do that. But I haven’t heard anyone yet talk about why this Bill’s important to Illinois. The modernization of O’Hare Field is critical to the vitality of the economy of our state, indeed, O’Hare Field is vital to the economy of the United States of America. It’s a hub for air transportation, both for commercial and for passenger. Our economy in the state, our business community requires that O’Hare, one of the great economic engines of this state and country, be modernized so we can compete with other cities. We’ve seen Denver and Orlando and other cities redo their airports and have become much more vital. And those… those modernizations have allowed other states to begin to catch us in the area of conventions and trade shows and tourism. For our business community, for our restaurants, and our hotels, for all 09300069.doc 139  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 businesses in Illinois it is essential that O’Hare be modernized. And so, I understand the issues that people are bringing forth, I understand why they are, but let’s not use some of these things as just simply places to hang our hats because we wanna have an excuse to vote ‘no’ for political reasons. What’s important here is that we help our business community, what’s important here is that we help Illinois prosper and grow. To do that, the economics of our state require a modern O’Hare Field. I strongly recommend your ‘aye’ votes.”

Speaker Novak: “Thank you. And further discussion? The Gentleman from Will, Mr. Meyer.”

“The Sponsor will yield.”

“No.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Froehlich.”

“The Sponsor yields.”

“That’s correct.”

“What that means is that if there’s property that the city believes is gonna be required; a boundary for safety, parking, what have you, they may move against that property, but not with quick-take. If you look at Section 7-103.149 in the statute, you will see that the specific quick-take grant is limited by, I don’t think we use ‘meets and bounds’, but it’s close to it.”

“That’s right.”

“This is likely to be a ten-, fifteen-year project and we know how even… even when you have the security of knowing you can go forward, sometimes delays do happen.”

“I don’t see how they could do it anywhere except very close to the airfield itself.”

“That’s possible. They would have to have a pretty strong ground in the law, I would think, before a judge would… would give them the opportunity to go forward given this language.”

“But, you remember, we’re… that right now there are a very large number of lawsuits have been filed, the city’s winning all of them and they will continue to win all of them. But the delays implicit in these court actions are delays that could make this project into a 40-year project, not a 10-,or a 20-year project. When you win every time, but it takes you two years to get there, there is something wrong with the process.”

“I don’t have an answer.”

“Yes.” 09300069.doc 144  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“We believe it’s the city.”

“To the Bill.”

“Bring your remarks to a close, Sir.”

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

“Yes, Sir.”

“Sponsor will yield, Sir.” 09300069.doc 145  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“I believe… No, there’s no local money, no state money. I believe there are federal dollars available with the help of the airlines and others to begin that process.”

“The financial responsibility will be borne neither by the citizens of the city nor the taxpayers of Illinois. Management responsibility for the modernization project will belong to the city.”

“Well, I anticipate other airlines will spring up to take their place and in any case, I think the moneys are 09300069.doc 146  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 coming also from… from federal funds that may not be dependent on instant payments from those individual airlines.”

“Monitoring oversight reporting will continue to be functions for State Government to play. Currently, there is in the statutes the authority for the administration, for the Executive Branch, through the Department of Transportation, to exercise outright veto power over an airport modernization decision. That authority, that single authority, is specifically excluded from operation over this project and again, the reason is that this is a project that needs the security, once it begins, of knowing that it can go forward. You can’t put $6.6 billion into a program and say halfway through, oh, we think we should have done it a different way, let’s pull the plug.”

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

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

“Request is granted.”

“The Sponsor yields.”

“I believe it’s a $6.6 billion construction project.”

“Billion with a ‘b’, creating a hundred ninety-five thousand jobs.” 09300069.doc 149  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“I don’t believe so. I don’t believe there’s a direct specific payment from… I believe this comes from… from FAA construction funds.”

“Right.”

“Well, man… construction jobs, as you know, tend not to be forever, although this project, compared to any I’ve ever known, is practically a forever project. It’s going to take many years to complete and it is a part and parcel of the construction industry that construction workers generally go from one site ‘til they finish the job to the next site when they begin afresh.”

“I don’t know the specific plans for the area you mention.”

“To the Bill. To the Amendments.”

“Bring your remarks to a close, Representative. Please bring your remarks to a close.”

“Thank you. Mr. Wirsing, for what reason do you rise?”

“State your point.”

“Hi, John.” 09300069.doc 153  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

Speaker Novak: “Welcome back, Mr. Countryman. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Mathias.”

“The Sponsor yields.”

“That is correct.”

“The latter and in fact, we have support from the Jewish Federation with this language, the language that is in Senate Amendment 1.”

“Only, I think, that who knows what else they may find as they begin to do the construction. You know, we keep discovering odd things when people dig into the earth and I think, since we don’t know the exact length of the project nor whether it’s possible that we’ll find other remains in unlikely places means that this exemption should live the 09300069.doc 154  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 life of the project itself. But again, this is language that the city worked out with representatives of areas organizations, Christian as well as Jewish.”

“The 433 acres necessary for the actual operation of the field.”

“Correct.”

“To the Amendment.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Clinton, Mr. Granberg.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker from Kankakee. Ladies and Gentlemen, Illinois is a great state and we are a strong state. And part of our strength is directly attributed to our divergent interests. Unfortunately, those same interests are used to pit us against each other on occasion, either by geographic region or by party. As a downstater, I empathize with my good friends who are very much concerned about the raid on road funds. They provide critical funding for much needed jobs in downstate Illinois. As one who filed a suit against the state on illegal diversion of road funds, I understand the importance of the issue, but as a downstater today, I am telling you, this Bill is critical to our future, not only in Chicago and the suburbs, but to downstate as well. O’Hare Airport is critical to our economic future and we have to modernize, we have to expand for all of us, ya know, regardless of geographic region. And as a downstater, I will tell my downstate friends there is no nexus between the road fund issue and this Bill. There is no issue. We need this legislation. It is of vast importance to us all. So, I urge my downstaters and others to vote for this Bill to make sure we can continue to reflect the needs of the entire state, not just one region 09300069.doc 156  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 against another. And to quote the world famous labor leader, Dennis Gannon, ‘It’s about the jobs.’”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Daniels.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Lady from Cook, Representative Jones, Lou Jones.” Jones, L.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to give my time to David Miller.”

“When the appropriate time comes, ‘cause he’s already spoken in debate.” Jones, L.: “Okay.” 09300069.doc 159  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

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

“The Sponsor will yield.” Davis, W.: “Representative, very simply, I have a few questions. Can you please tell me why we need to expand O’Hare Airport?”

“Why what?” Davis, W.: “Why we need to expand O’Hare Airport?”

“We need to modernize the airport because of air traffic delays, because of safety issues, because this airport is used by many people, by many planes, delays plague the visitors, they lose the economy money and this new configuration of the airport we bel… make the airport far more efficient for passengers and for the United States’ economy. We also believe it will reduce noise, congestion and pollution. So, the basic reason for this project is not, in fact, the jobs it’ll create or the money it’ll spend. We need to do this in order to make O’Hare Airport work in the twenty-first century.” Davis, W.: “Then, would you also… it’s safe to say that this is to solve regional aviation needs, as well?”

“Yes.” Davis, W.: “Well, then if the objective of this is to solve regional aviation needs, then why are we not considering proposals for Meigs and Peotone at the same time?”

“Well, first of all, my understanding is that the Department of Transportation is still buying land in the 09300069.doc 160  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Peotone footprint. It’s my understanding that the decision about priorities with respect to airport construction and reconfiguration is one that is reserved to the FAA not to us.” Davis, W.: “How long is this project going to take?”

“Somewhere between 10 and 20 years, I believe. It’s a lengthy project.” Davis, W.: “Okay. Are you aware that an airport in Peotone can be up and running in approximately two to five years?”

“That I’m not familiar with all the facts about Peotone, but as I say, this Bill is about moving O’Hare into the twenty-first century, activities in respect to Peotone’s, to as far as I know, are ongoing, but they are not part and they’re not relevant to this Bill.” Davis, W.: “Oh, no. Actually, Representative, it’s very relevant. You’ve already stated that the objective is to solve regional aviation needs. And if the objective is to solve regional aviation needs quickly, then why are we considering… why are we putting all this effort into a project that you’ve just stated will take 10, 15, 20 years when we’ve got a possibility of solving regional aviation needs with a project that will take less than 10 years to get going? And if the objective is for growth and development, we have a project that will grow as regional aviation needs grow. Isn’t that smart?”

“Well, as I say, that this… the timing decision, as I understand it with respect to Peotone, is up to the Federal Government. The State of Illinois is continuing with 09300069.doc 161  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 purchases of property. The State of Illinois is not doing the O’Hare modernization plan, that is done by the City of Chicago. And if the City of Peotone has legislation that they wish to propose, I’m sure they’d ask you to carry it and we could discuss that at the appropriate time.” Davis, W.: “Well, actually, there has been attempts to get legislation relative to Peotone moving forward and that will be discussed in a little bit. One of the things that you keep mentioning over and over is about jobs and you say this project will render approximately a hundred and ninety-five thousand jobs. Well, isn’t… We have a project that can possibly bring 236,000 jobs to this area, to the regional area, as well. What’s wrong with that?”

“Did I say anything was wrong with that?” Davis, W.: “Well, but…”

“I don’t believe I did, Representative.” Davis, W.: “But you keep touting a hundred and ninety-five thousand jobs. Here’s a possibility of approximately 40…”

“Right.” Davis, W.: “…45 thousand…”

“Okay.” Davis, W.: “…more jobs for people in our region that will help our region even more. Not only that, Representative, this is a… also a multibillion dollar project with contracts and opportunities, as well and it has the ability to bring approximately $10 billion to the annual economy. So, why are we not considering a project such as this, as you’ve already stated, if the objective is to solve regional 09300069.doc 162  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 aviation needs, then why are we not considering this? I thought that was the primary responsibility of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois is to yes, look at our respective districts, but to also consider those things that will benefit the entire State of Illinois. Why are we not doing that with this proposal?”

“Representative, you are welcome to introduce a Bill that does exactly what you describe and we would be happy to discuss it with you when you do.” Davis, W.: “Well, oddly enough…”

“This Bill is about a project, a plan, a modernization approach that is beginning to go forward and we need this legislation in order to make it happen.” Davis, W.: “Well, oddly enough, Representative, I might consider doing such a thing, but I’m also scared that it’ll never get out of Rules. But that’s another discussion.”

“Ohhh.” Davis, W.: “To the Bill.”

“To the Amendment.” Davis, W.: “For 20 years, airport runway capacity in the State of Illinois in the Chicago area region has been debated, but never acted upon. In the year 2001, with aviation traffic reaching the practical capacity of airports at O’Hare and Midway, increasing flight delays, Members of Congress mandating that the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois produce a plan to enhance runway capacity in the State of Illinois. In order to accomplish this, there was a plan developed that will require or include the 09300069.doc 163  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 modernization of O’Hare as well as building an airport in the south suburban area and preserving Meigs Field. If our objective again, Ladies and Gentlemen, is to look at regional aviation needs air space in Chicago will fill up even with this modernization plan. At some point, we will still need additional airports. It was once stated by an FAA official that we will need approximately 10 to 20 airports the size of O’Hare in the future. So, if our objective is to look at regional aviation needs and to try to solve regional aviation needs, there is no reason why we should not be at least considering the plan that was already laid out in previous General Assemblies that includes three projects to help solve our regional aviation needs. I plan to vote ‘no’ on this legislation and encourage others to consider the same. Thank you.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? Mr. Morrow.”

“Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Before I begin, I’d like to make a question of the Chair.”

“State your inquiry.”

“Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make sure that Senate Amendments 1 and 2, that were adopted in the Senate, are still on this Bill as we… as we talk about it now in the House.”

“Currently, before the House, there’s a Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2.”

“All right. So, then we’re only gonna have to take what… All right. So, we’re right now we’re considering the 09300069.doc 164  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Motion to Concur with these… with these Amendments being adopted to this Bill?”

“Correct.”

“So, we’re gonna be taking one or two votes on this Bill?”

“One vote, Sir.”

“One vote to make sure that the Amendments are adopted?”

“Correct.”

“And then…”

“Final action, too.”

“And then, final action, also.”

“Correct.”

“I just want to make sure that I’m not being… that there’s not a parliamentary move thing put on me right now.”

“It’s not necessary.”

“I’m not ‘Willie Lump Lump’. Would the Lady yield?”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Yes. Representative Currie, is there any language in the Bill that takes control from the Illinois Department of Transportation over aviation?”

“The only reference in the Bill that would deny a current authority to the Department of Transportation is the one that would take its veto power away from the decision to embark upon the O’Hare Modernization Plan. They will continue to have a monitoring, an oversight role, but that authority is very unusual. We don’t know of other 09300069.doc 165  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 instances where it exists at all, but in any case, it would be abrogated for purposes of this… this project.”

“Okay. Mr. Speaker?”

“Yes, Sir.”

“To the Bill. Before I get into Amendment #2 to House Bill 74… 721, I think I need to make one thing clear. Certain Members of the Illinois Black Caucus have been accused by some people that saying that we broke our… our commitment on Meigs. There was never any commitments by the Illinois legislative Black Caucus on Meigs Field. What we did was we allowed the Friends of Meigs to come before the caucus, just as we allowed the Southland Chamber of Commerce to come before the caucus, just as we allowed the City of Chicago to come before the caucus. There was never any commitments made by the caucus to make Meigs Field a priority. Now, Meigs Field, personally, I feel should remain open and I say that because many a them… many of the reasons as the Friends of Meigs have said that the Tuskegee Airmen give flight lessons to children there. Well, the reason why I’m in favor of keeping Meigs open because one of the Tuskegee Airmen, in fact, one of the original Tuskegee Airmen happens to be a father figure to me and that’s Colonel Bill Thompson. So, for someone to allude that we broke our promise is an insult to me as a… as a African-American Legislator and it’s an insult to us as a caucus. And… okay. And I detest… we brought this group before the caucus in good faith to allow them to come before us and state their case in good faith and for them 09300069.doc 166  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 to good around here and say… making these accusations of us, I find it deplorable. My last comments are, you know, many of you know that I held out for the advisory board and I’m gonna explain why we held out for the advisory board. I’m chairman of the advisory board over the Soldier Field project. I was a novice when it comes to construction. I’m not a novice anymore when it comes to construction. Soldier Field brought the light from under the darkness and that’s why it was very important that we brought the advisory board over so… over O’Hare. And I’m gonna tell you why. Someone asked me today, at the advisory board over Soldier Field, Representative, was it an open meeting? Yes, it was. Any Legislator in this Body had an opportunity to come to the advisory board meetings over Soldier Field. In fact, I welcome participation by the Members of this Body over Soldier Field and I… and I don’t know if I’m gonna be named to the advisory board over O’Hare, but I would hope that whoever is named to the advisory board over O’Hare, that they adhere to the Open Meetings Act that we just passed, because this is important that we not only have input from the Legislators that are gonna be on the board and the appointees of the mayor of the City of Chicago, but it’s also important that we have input from the public. So, I would hope that whenever these meetings are scheduled and whoever is elected as chairman of this advisory board that they allow open discussion and open meetings on this Act. My time is almost up. There’s some people I do want to thank for 09300069.doc 167  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 their hard work and making sure that Senate Amendment #2 was adopted to House Bill 721. First of all, I want to thank Dennis Gannon of Chicago Federation of Labor. As you know, I’ve had many Bills that I’ve introduced this year that many considered antiunion. Well, I’m not antiunion; I’m pro my constituents and I’m glad to know that Dennis Gannon did fight very hard for this advisory board to be put on. I am gonna vote…”

Speaker Novak: “Please bring your remarks to a close, Mr. Morrow.”

“I’m gonna vote for House Bill 721. There’s some other things that I would like to see in this Bill, but this is the Bill that we have right now and this is the Bill that I wish a favorable vote on. Thank you.”

Speaker Novak: “Thank you, Sir. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Peoria, Mr. Leitch.”

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

“The Sponsor yields.” McAuliffe: Representative, with some of the new runway configuration, how would the eligibility be determined for homes and schools to re… receive noise remediation?”

“The city’s already begun looking at the… the preliminary long-range noise contour and they believe, at 09300069.doc 169  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 this point, that the area that would be… that would find itself less affected by air… craft noise would be reduced by about 34 percent. So, an almost 50 percent decrease in the number of buildings that are affected, houses.”

“They will… the ones that… the 850, for whom funding has already been secured, the soundproofing will continue.”

“It’s being… it’s being developed as part of the environmental impact statement and the noise commission would like to begin using the new contour map as soon as one is approved by the FAA.”

“We do think so.”

“Proceed.”

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

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this chamber today, we’ve talked a lot about the importance of economic development and it seems to me, at least in the Chicagoland area, that the economic development is only important in one area. There continues to be job creation in the northwest section of the city. I’m not saying that some of my constituents in the south suburbs would not benefit from the modernization of O’Hare, but most of them would have to travel an hour and a half dur…”

“Excuse me. Proceed.”

“…during rush hour to get to the job. We, too, would like to see job creation in our area where people can even afford to live. We would like to see money for our schools, our municipalities, and those of us that live in the south suburbs, but we continue to be relegated to second-class citizenship. The City of Chicago sends money to Gary, Indiana, not even in our own state to keep that airport going, but we don’t think enough about people in our own state for economic development. That is very frustrating and disturbing. I urge a ‘no’ vote.” 09300069.doc 171  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

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

“Mr. Speaker, I yield my time to Representative Delgado.”

“Okay. Mr. Delgado. We’ll come to Mr. Delgado when everyone has spoke, like we’re gonna come to Mr. Miller. Representative Parke, further discussion.”

“State your inquiry.”

“We will…”

“We will provide that ruling to the Body after everyone has spoke.”

“The Sponsor yields.”

“Cook County Circuit Court.”

“If the quick-take were in… in Cook County, the challenge could come in Cook County. If it were in DuPage County, that’s where the challenge would be.”

“Right. And that… that would account for eminent…”

“Or an eminent domain challenge. Yes.”

“Other challenges to the law, in part because there’ve been challenges already filed in many different jurisdictions and I think there would be an effort to consolidate any challenges that might go to court.”

“To the Bill.”

“Bring your remarks to a close, Mr. Parke.”

“There’s a timer. There’s five minutes per speaker.”

“Yes, Sir, please.”

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

“Are you sure there’s nobody else left? I want to give my time to Representative Miller.”

“There’s two other people left, Representative Jones and you’ll not be denied the opportunity at your request. The Lady from Peoria, Representative Slone. Representative Slone.”

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

“Lady yields.” 09300069.doc 175  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Representative Currie, I’ve tried… I’ve read the analysis on this and I’ve tried to read most of the Bill. It does seem to have rather astonishing powers in association with it. I guess, in addition to the Home Rule questions to which certain Representatives on the other side of the aisle have made me exquisitely sensitive, I’m also interested in understanding how it is that there can be no condemnation either by another local government or by any state agency under the legislation. This is Section 20. Can… can you address that for me, please?”

“Wha… This is an order to provide for the security that the project could go forward. Obviously, if somebody else is going to be taking the property needed for the runway, you can’t build it. So, this just clarifies that this footprint and the surrounding territory must be available by quick-take in the one case if necessary or by eminent domain in the other if necessary so that the whole project can happen.”

“Okay. So, if the state would want to condemn property on behalf of the city or to give to the city for the purpose of the airport, that would… that would not be allowed under this legislation. Is that right? It’s an effective preemption…”

“Right. The city…”

“…of the state.”

“The city will stand as itself and do the job itself. Now, remember, when we talk a lot about quick-take and eminent domain, there will be many voluntary sellers, 09300069.doc 176  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 people who are perfectly willing to give up their property and agree to a reasonable price after appraisal with the City of Chicago. So, a focus on both the quick-take and eminent domain powers may be somewhat overreaching. As I say, there are people who want to sell right now who aren’t able to because the City of Bensenville has kept that issue tied up in the courts.”

“Okay. Another question that I have is whether airport property, as it’s used in the Bill, refers to the current O’Hare footprint or the current O’Hare footprint plus whatever’s in Bensenville and those other communities that is proposed to be within O’Hare after all the acquisition has occurred?”

“The quick-take authority is limited to the perimeter of the field. Eminent domain would be available if additional acreage…”

“Okay. I’m sorry, Rep…”

“…is needed.”

“Excuse me for interrupting you, but I do… let me… let me explain what I’m asking you. In the definition of ‘airport property’, that is in the Bill, and it is then used throughout the Bill. By ‘airport property’ do they mean what’s currently within the perimeter of O’Hare as it stands now or O’Hare plus what is proposed to be acquired for the expansion?”

“I’m not sure I follow the gist of your question. There… We defined…” 09300069.doc 177  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“It sounds… it seems in some of the Sections that what… that it refers to ‘airport property’, it refer… the language refers to ‘airport property’ for things that are not yet ‘airport property’ because they haven’t been acquired. That’s why I’m asking if… if it defines that in.”

“Well, here we include things like property that is… that is defined as ‘airport property’ because you needed it to be able to navigate safely or you needed it in order to protect pedestrians on the ground. So, I’m… that seems to me to be a reasonable definition of ‘airport property’.”

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

“To the Amendments.”

“To the Amendments? I certainly support the idea of expansion of O’Hare. I think it’s clearly critical to the economic development of Illinois as a whole. It’s critical for jobs for our workers throughout the Chicago metropolitan region and throughout the state. I think it’s also very important as a matter of principle that we reinvest our resources in parts of our communities that are already developed and already have infrastructure in place as much as possible. And I urge your ‘aye’ votes.”

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

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the… to the Amendment. It’s very clear to me that when we talk about economic development and we talk about airports, there’s two sides to this thing. And on the technical aspects, I’m very 09300069.doc 178  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 excited about the technical aspects of this… of this expansion. Because, let me tell ya…”

“Go ahead.”

“…when Newark International Airport, in my opinion, in New Jersey, having worked there, having seen the redevelopment of an airport… In my hometown, by the way, in Newark, New Jersey, and everyone knows how de… how depressed Newark International or Newark City was that I got to witness the economic, substantial economic growth, which included link development, new startups of small businesses, minority businesses, majority businesses, you name it. We were able to see and create a third metropolitan airport on the East Coast in those days of the ‘80s, right after deregulation of 1980. And we continue, keeping in mind, to compete with Atlanta, New York, and those metropolitan airports out on the East Coast. There would be huge ramifications if we’re not able to carry this legislation through, because the technical aspects of this project remain a must for the overall air travel of this great country. When you talk about ATC holes at O’Hare Airport, I’ve done… I was part of over 200 landings and takeoffs in that airport and when it snows in Denver, you’re not moving. When it snows in Buffalo, you’re not moving. We need to make sure that the technical aspects are very clear and I am convinced that they are. And it’s very important to talk about a wonderful team concept, something that I fight diligently for in a democracy. While we could talk about the hard work and the very 09300069.doc 179  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 positive steps taken by the City of Chicago to partner with labor, to be able to bring residents together and to bring folks from all walks of life to be able to say, we’re gonna be open, available. Because, yes, I’ve been known to say ‘no’ to the City of Chicago and I’ve been saying in the past that we need to be always open and my goodness, has this project shown me an open door. And we have to make sure that that input continues to be there and I say it is. And we want to talk about Illinoisans makin’ sure that now Illinois can move forward as one from that chamber in the Senate to the chamber in the House to the Governor’s Office. I am proud because we had 12 years of a contract and I know now Illinoisans, I can send a strong message and we were very clear that when they send us all here they made a decision that they wanted to make that change and they have it a mandate in makin’ that change. And when we talk about the availability to work with labor and the mayor and all of the good folks of the City of Chicago and the access that I have had in minority contracting and hiring when Senate Bill 802 insures that the City of Chicago’s progressive ordinances on minority and female contracting and hiring applies to the O’Hare modernization and knowing that this Bill will require semi-annual compliance reporting to the General Assembly, I find this to be very comprehensive Bill. It is a Bill that we can live with and having worked in the airline industry, having been on those runways and seeing Newark International putting it together for a city that has many walks of life, 09300069.doc 180  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 but a strong minority population, today is on the map. And many of you have flown into Newark International, into C terminal where I have my name on a brick, in that city, in that airport and being part of an airline called People Express Airlines that many of you know. So, I commend labor, I commend the city, and I commend what we have done here in the State of Illinois to partner. And you know I like baseball and you gotta be able to have a team, because without a team there’s no win. So, let’s make sure, let’s forget the bickering. Let’s make sure that we don’t get into partisanship here, but let’s keep that to a minimum if we can. But remember the unemployment rate in my district in our Senate district remains at 14.3 and yes, we’re on the northwest side and we live in the very cosmopolitan and eclectic area of the northwest side, so this is a Bill that will benefit everyone. And I would ask for a strong ‘aye’ vote on Amendment 1 and 2, as we move forward. And keep in mind, let’s not talk theory. Have you been there? Because O’Hare will be the biggest item we’re dealing with in our lifetime. And I’m very proud to know that we’re here. O’Hare, Chicago, and the State of Illinois is on the map and we will compete with Atlanta. We will continue to compete with the Orlandos and make sure that Illinois stays #1 and that is why my community has sent me here and to make sure that my community is part of being that #1. Let’s vote ‘aye’.” 09300069.doc 181  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Thank you. Representative Lou Jones yields her time to Representative Miller, who’s the last speaker. Representative Miller.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had an inquiry of the Chair.”

“State your inquiry, Sir.”

“In regards to the number of required votes?”

“Yes, there will be a ruling from the Chair after everyone has spoken and after Representative Currie has closed.”

“Okay. Thank you.”

“Or before she closes.”

“For those who know me, I very rarely would ever speak twice on a Bill and I do thank our Body here for allowing me to speak on this issue and I know it’s been a lot of points debated. This is clearly a very emotional issue for us and the reason it’s very emotional is because the economic impact, not just to the State of Illinois, not just to the region, but to all of those concerned and the individuals that we represent. I remind you, in this Body, there will be no other economic engine package that I guarantee that any of us will ever have a chance to put input on. No other in the state, according to the Sponsor’s statements that she’s made. There will be no other that has this kind of impact. That’s why it’s extremely important for us. There have been other options that have been introduced here in addition to facilities such as Meigs, that has been establishes. The former 09300069.doc 182  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 speaker talked about Newark Airport, I would like to remind that former speaker there are three airports in the metropolitan New York area; LaGuardia, JFK, and Newark. In Chicago we will be delegated to the second city, as Los Angeles has five major airports and so there is definitely room for Peotone, definitely room for the continuation of Meigs and definitely room for the expansion of O’Hare. Unfortunately, we in the south suburbs have been delegated to second-class citizens and have always been on the waiting list. Peotone itself, can be built within five years as opposed to what the Sponsor has said, 15 years. It is safer. There is no reason why we are retrofitting O’Hare expansion as opposed to building with unlimited growth of Peotone. It is cheaper. The Sponsor has indicated that this Bill will cost $6.6 billion to create as opposed to the $500 million for an inaugural site at Peotone. The jobs themselves, you’ve heard over and over again, 195 thousand jobs, we are not arguing that. The Peotone site will be 236 thousand job, jobs within a 20- mile radius, good labor jobs that will benefit our entire region. There are three jobs for every one person in the north and northwest suburbs due to proliferation and growth in that region. Unfortunately, in the south suburbs there is one job for every sixth person. We have the longest transportation time, in not only just Illinois, but probably across the country. This only makes sense that we are equipped with parity. So far with Senate Bill 802, I did introduce language that also provides that parity 09300069.doc 183  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 throughout metropolitan Chicago by the implementation and continuation of Meigs Field with the development and the commitment that we’re looking for with a 10 thousand-foot runway at Peotone. That has not been honored. When we look at aviation capacity in the country it is a regional issue. This Bill is not an O’Hare expansion, it is dealing with regional airport transportation, not just in Illinois, but across the country. Efforts last year tried to bypass us as Members of the General Assembly with a Congressional agreement that unfortunately failed. We’re simply saying, stick to the agreement, keep the south land and south suburbs on economic par with jobs, growth, stability, that we deserve, that we demand. And the last point I’d like to make, is since I’ve been here all the economic growth and the major projects have gone north of 55th Street for my colleagues who do represent Chicago. We represent… we voted on Bills on Bears expansion, McCormick expansion, Sox Park. These things do not come our way. That… Boeing, last year, we gave $40 million. Sue, the dinosaur, we gave a tax incentive to. It is fair, it is economic sound policy that all in Illinois have a right to economic growth. Our schools and children have a right to the quality of education that they deserve and we believe a south suburban airport will provide the economic stimulus. I would urge my colleagues to vote ‘no’ until we have this parity that addresses those concerns. Thank you very much for your indulgence.” 09300069.doc 184  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

Speaker Novak: “Thank you. Representative Davis, Monique Davis.” Davis, M.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

“Yes, Ma’am.” Davis, M.: “I do realize that in the interest of time we have certainly debated this issue perhaps not sufficiently, but as well as could be…”

“Go ahead.” Davis, M.: “…at the end of Session. I believe that the expansion of O’Hare is needed because as an international airport people are traveling throughout the metropolitan area and not receiving the safety that should occur because of the shortage of the numbers… number of runways. Peotone Airport is significant, the proposal. My question would be, how soon… how soon, Ladies and Gentlemen, will we build transportation to such an airport? How soon, Ladies and Gentlemen, will we provide public transportation throughout the south suburbs so that people could travel to work if the cement trucks were there today? If we laid the cement trucks today, how would those that we purport to work, get there? That must be a major consideration. I believe that as O’Hare expansion takes place the economic development in the entire state will be advanced because people will come from around the world and do business with those of us who reside here. I urge an ‘aye’ vote.”

“Thank you. Mr. Uhe for a ruling.”

“Mr. Black.”

“Proceed.”

“There has been a request for the Motion to Overrule the Chair. The question is, ‘Shall the Chair be sustained?’ All those in favor… all those to vote to sustain the Chair vote ‘yes’; 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 63 ‘yes’, 52 ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And the Motion fails. The Chair is sustained. Representative Currie to close.”

“Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. There are many of you who will not support this Bill because of what isn’t in it. I would invite you to reconsider. There is nothing in this Bill about Peotone or about Meigs, but that does not define their fate. What is in this Bill, I believe defines the fate not only of the economic engine 09300069.doc 189  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 that is O’Hare today, but the economic engine that makes the rest of our state go round. Chicago, the northeastern part of Illinois, has been the transportation mecca of these United States since the middle of the 18th… of the 19th century and it was strong through the 20th century. And the question, how we fare in the 21st century depends in my view in part on our vote on the Concurrence Motion on House Bill 721 today. This Bill is not about jobs and it isn’t about $6.6 billion in a construction project. It is about bringing that airport up to snuff. It is about reducing delays, delays that cost us the passenger, and them, the airlines, hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It is about making it safer to travel in and out of O’Hare. It is about making congestion less a problem, pollution less a problem, noise less a problem than it is today. If we muff this opportunity, we have only ourselves to blame for an economy that could well go south, for an economy that may not keep us at center stage in the 21st century and beyond. I know it is difficult for people who live near the field who fear their homes, their businesses may be at stake and I don’t blame them. I’m sensitive to their problems and I promise you the city will be, too. Anytime a road needs widening, a bridge needs building, there are people who face this location and we should have no less sympathy for the people who live near O’Hare. But to say that that should stop this project from going forward would be to shoot ourselves in the collective foot. Yes, this is about transportation, it is about economic success for the 09300069.doc 190  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 northeastern part of the state, for the whole State of Illinois, and it is a help that it will create those hundred ninety-five thousand jobs and put $6.6 billion into our economy. Speaker and Members of this chamber, join me in voting ‘yes’ to concur in Senate Amendments 1 and 2 to House Bill 721.”

“Thank you. The Lady now moves that the House concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 721. 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 84 voting ‘yes’, 3 1 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And the House does concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 721. Yes, Mr. Parke.”

“There was a request. There was a request for a verification. Will all Members be in their seats. All staff retire to the back. All Members be in your seats. All staff retire to the rear of the chambers. Representative Mulligan. Representative Mulligan. Did you request a verification?”

“That’s what I thought. All Members in your seats. All staff and unauthorized personnel to the back of the chambers, so we can proceed with the verification. Mr. Fritchey. Does everyone have… wanna take a seat so we can 09300069.doc 191  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 proceed with this verification. Representative Mulligan, on the verification.”

“Poll those in the affirmative.”

“Representative Mulligan.”

“The Lady withdraws her verification. And on this question, there are 84 voting ‘yes’, 31 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And the House does concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 721. Having reached a required majority is hereby de… Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk.”

“Senate Bill 1740. Mr. Clerk, please read the Bill.”

“Mr. Rita. Oh, I’m sorry. Excuse me, Mr. Rita. Representative Bassi, for what reason do you rise?”

“Please state your point.”

Speaker Novak: “Welcome to the Illinois General Assembly. Thank you. Representative McCarthy, for what reason do you rise? Well, we’ll get to that, Mr. McCarthy, when the Bill is presented. Senate Bill 1740, the Gentleman from Cook, 09300069.doc 193  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Mr. Rita. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please. Oh, it’s been read. Mr. Rita.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. We’ve heard some debate on this quick-take Bill and we’d like to clear the… some of the talk that has been going around about this Bill. I have a letter from the Village of Crestwood and the village board that this is not intended for a casino. This land is for an economic development that we were talkin’ about, but everybody keeps talkin’ about this being the future site of a casino and I have a letter here stating from Mayor Stranczek and the board that this is for an economic development which will bring jobs to the south suburbs which is much needed. I also have a letter from the developers statin’ that it’s not a casino and this is… now, nor in the future will be a site of a casino, that this is for economic development of the Super Menard’s and Wal-mart.”

“Is there any discussion? On this question, there is the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Parke.”

“Sponsor will yield.”

“It’s gonna be quick-take.”

“It’s for economic development use.”

“To the Bill.”

“Mr. Parke, are you finished, Sir?”

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

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. We did debate this quite thoroughly the other day. And I just want to talk about a few things. One was… it’s ten pieces of property, not eleven. They talked about the fact that only one out of 11 of the property owners had any trouble with this. As of this date, and I did ask the other day, please get something from the nine parcel owners to say they’re happy with this. I haven’t seen one bit of that information. I have seen two owners out of the ten. Now, some, of course, are afraid to come forward, but two have come forward with written statements saying that they’re very unhappy with the offers, very unhappy with the way this is going. The one man that was mentioned the other day, he has an eight-acre parcel. The other guy right next door to him has an eight-acre parcel that’s 09300069.doc 196  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 being offered like five times as much money. This is private property, as Representative Parke had mentioned. Private property going from one private property owner to another private property owner. We had a quick-take Bill here yesterday. It was like 15 different pieces of property, every one of them was for a certain street, a certain road, a certain municipal purpose. The Wal-Mart commitment that they talked about, I asked for a letter on that. We did have notification from Country Club Hills, another village just 30 blocks down the road, they are in serious negotiations. They did show us the preliminary letters showing that Wal-Mart is thinking of going there. The odds are that this isn’t for, you know, something else. And some of the people who are being asked to sell this property were also asked for names of potential investors in a casino. So, if a casino’s not going there, that seems pretty coincidental, as well. I think my new young colleague has done a good job on the Bill. He got 28 votes the other day. I hope maybe 15 or 20 of you jump on with ‘em, get him up to 43 or 45, so we can be a testament to the great job he’s done the last two days lobbying this vote. But please, let’s not go anywhere near the number 60. Thank you very much and I’d appreciate a ‘no’ vote.”

Speaker Novak: “Thank you. Any further discussion? The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Biggins.”

“To the Bill.” 09300069.doc 197  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Gentleman from DuPage… Further discussion? The Lady from Peoria, Representative Slone.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen. To the Bill.”

“To the Bill.”

“Even if the Bill would do what the Sponsor says it would do, it, of course, has the impairments that Representative Parke referred to, but in addition to that, I am totally at a loss to see why the State of Illinois or this General Assembly should do anything to assist the largest corporation on the planet with its land acquisition needs. I mean, if Wal-Mart can’t afford to buy it, I don’t see why we should help ‘em out. Similarly, with Super Menard’s. And I would certainly urge a ‘no’ vote.” 09300069.doc 198  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

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

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I raised a couple of questions to the Sponsor in committee that I’d like to…”

“Spon…”

“…speak to the Bill regarding. Besides the issue of what this property is really going to be used for, there is the clear issue of how this whole matter has developed over time, the very process, the very nature of the city’s handling of this event, rather this project, commitments that were offered, commitments made, commitments not made. I hope that the Sponsor a year or two years from now is not personally embarrassed by the outcome of this project. But there is a lot about the process with which this project has progressed over time that I think is worthy of examination by the Cook County state’s attorney, the attorney general or both. I am not suggesting any specific wrongdoing, but when one 80 parcel acre or 80-acre parcel is offered 2. or $21 million and a comparable piece of property 3 million if you take it now, a million and a half or a little bit more if we have to go to quick-take, seems very curious to me and I think that it gets more curious as we go along. Now, the proponents of this Bill have indicated they were going to use this property for a particular purpose. I’m not gonna stand in a way… stand in the way of that intended purpose as they stated, but I think there is good reason to believe that the process in which this development has proceeded thus far raises some 09300069.doc 199  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 very, very serious questions and I would urge the appropriate authority to monitor this project, to examine it very closely as it moves down the line. There’s something going on here that I really think may be improper and out of the… out of question. Thank you.”

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

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

“To the Bill.”

“I rise in support of the Gentleman’s Bill. The… the notion that this has anything to do with gaming expansion is really kind of silly. We don’t have the ability to give the city… the Village of Crestwood or anything… any other place a gaming license at the present time. Today, the law authorizes ten gaming licenses, by my count, all of them are occupied. There is no authority in the law for another gaming license for Crestwood. So, the notion that you… some people want to scare people on this floor that big, bad gaming expansion is coming from Mr. Rita’s Bill is really kinda nuts, in my opinion. Secondly, I think we know… all need to support a Gentleman who’s out here to try to help his community. He’s here telling you that his community wants to be able to do this for the purposes he’s stated. I don’t think we should be subscribing any other motives to Mr. Rita or any other Member on this floor who stands up and tells you what he or she is all about. He very openly and honestly told you what the Village of Crestwood wanted to do with this legislation, nothing more 09300069.doc 200  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 nothing less. So, support it if you wish, don’t support it if you wish, but why don’t we assess this piece of legislation on its merits and based on the character of the Sponsor and not somebody’s guesswork or somebody’s fear mongering on the floor of this House. I would recommend ‘aye’ votes.”

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

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll just be very brief, if I can. I just passed out of here, not too long ago, Senate Bill 640 which had a bunch of votes on it both Republicans and Democrats had about 25 quick-take provisions of which one or two talked about certain villages procuring property within a TIF district that they were gonna use for redevelopment. There weren’t all these questions about whether they were gonna then, after they redevelop it, use it for private ownership. The village is gonna buy this and they’re gonna determine what to do, what’s gonna be a parking lot, what’s gonna be a park district, what’s gonna be sold to other communities in… I mean, other businesses inside a TIF district is what’s happening here. This has happened many, many times in this General Assembly and will continue to happen in this General Assembly. Again, as Representative Lang said, vote for it or against it, but let’s for or against it for the right reasons. We’ve done this before. There’s absolutely no casino going on there and if there are people out there that are buying property because they think there’s a casino going on, I have lots 09300069.doc 201  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 of property to sell ya everywhere in Cook County if you think there’s casinos going everywhere. There’s this Phantom casino that’s been being built forever and I just think that’s a red herring that we shouldn’t fall for. Be for or against it, but there is no casino, nobody’s being disingenuous. We know what this is. It’s just quick-take that we pass every year in this General Assembly, nothing more nothing less. And all I do know it does help the south suburbs and I will certainly support Representative Rita in his efforts.”

“Further discussion? Mr. Rita to close.”

“We’ve heard a lot about this Bill. And I have a… as I said, I have a letter from the developer, a letter from the mayor and the board what the intended use of this property is. This is vacant land. It’s one owner holding up this development. We’re not takin’ anyone’s home. We’re not takin’ anyone’s farm. It’s vacant land in a TIF district and one owner is holding up this development which should be bringing jobs and development to the south suburbs. I urge an ‘aye’ vote.”

“The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1740 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 63 voting ‘yes’, 51 voting ‘no’, 1 voting ‘present’. Mr. Black. And having reach the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1740 is hereby declared passed. Mr. Black.” 09300069.doc 202  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“State your point, Sir.”

“Thank you, Mr. Black. Supplemental Calendar #4, on the Order of Concurrences, there is House Bill 3412. The Gentleman from Kendall, Mr. Cross. We’ll stand at ease for a minute. Just stand at ease for a second. Mr. Cross on the Concurrence Motion on House Bill 3412. Mr. Cross.”

“Thank you. Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Fritchey.”

“Thank you, Speaker. To the Bill. As the Sponsor indicated, this is not the Bill that we sent over, folks. There was a lot of work that was put in to putting some 09300069.doc 203  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 oversight into these rules and giving us some ability to have guidance. Everybody was worried about not having innocent actions get tripped up into violations of what would become State Law. And by creating the inspector general and by creating the ethics commissions we tried to give us something that was both an enforcement mechanism as well as a safety valve to make sure that we were able to comply with the new laws that we put in. We’ve seen all too often these chambers pass different versions of ethics Bills so they can both say that they passed something and then have nothing get to the Governor’s desk. Well, it’s a testament to the Speaker, it’s a testament to Representative Cross that we were not going to let that happen. This Bill should pass. This Bill will pass. We can all go home and say that we put a very, very good piece of ethics legislation on the books. But we will be back on this, we will need to be back on this. We will need to have some type of oversight that both Leaders of our respective caucuses have tried to put into this Bill. We will come back hopefully, in the Veto Session and do that. Our job’s not done. Illinois being what it tends to be at times, we had individuals across the rotunda who were more interested in preserving golf and tennis rights than they were at having oversight in the ethics Bill. Well, they’ve managed to succeed in doing what they wanted to do, but this is a good Bill. Again, both of our Leaders deserve a lot of credit for standing firm in their commitment to get something to the Governor’s desk. This Bill will be signed 09300069.doc 204  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 when it gets there. And I request, albeit somewhat reluctantly, an ‘aye’ vote.”

Speaker Novak: “Is there any further discussion? Representative Cross to close. Yes, Sir, Mr. Cross.”

“Proceed.”

“Thank you. Is there any further discussion? The Lady from Cook, Representative Coulson.”

“The Sponsor will yield.”

“To the Bill.”

Speaker Novak: “Any further discussion? Seeing none, the Gentleman moves that… Excuse me, Mr. Cross to close.”

“Yes, Sir, we will do that.”

“If we can get the information to the Clerk, we will add them to the Bill.”

“Okay. The original Sponsors of Senate Bill 703 should be added to this Bill as cosponsors. No further discussion. The Gentleman now moves that the House concur in Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 3412. 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’, 0 voting ‘no’, 1 voting ‘present’. And the House does concur in Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 3412. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On page 13 of the Calendar there is 09300069.doc 208  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Senate Bill 787, Speaker Madigan. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Speaker Madigan. Third Reading, excuse me. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Speaker Madigan.”

“Mr. Speaker, with the Amendment the Bill would provide that the Supreme Court must bargain with an exclusive bargaining representative of the court reporters that work for the court system concerning wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. It mandates that the court recognize an exclusive bargaining representative of all persons employed as court reporters in the State of Illinois and it also mandates that the court appoint a panel to handle the question of arbitration if there’s a need for that process. And I move for the passage of the Bill.”

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

“Thank you, Mr. Black. Is there any further discussion? The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 787 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 109 voting ‘yes’, 6 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 787 is hereby declared passed. On Supplemental Calendar #4, on the Order of Concurrences, there is House Bill 917. The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Millner. Mr. Millner on the Concurrence Motion.”

“Thank you. Is there any discussion? Take it out. Mr. Clerk, please take this Bill out of the record. The Motion, the Concurrence Motion, is still in committee. We’ll get back to it. Senate Bill 1923. The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Lang. Senate Bill 1923. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.” 09300069.doc 211  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Mr. Lang on the Amendment.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Floor Amendment #1 to this Bill is exactly the same as House Bill 89 which passed here, I think, 115-0. This is the Bill that created a program for collecting debt owed to the State of Illinois. As you recall, we have close to $11 billion owed to the state and this is a Bill I’ve been working on for a very long time, passed this House five times and it’s a Bill that will help us collect as much as a billion dollars in the next couple of fiscal years. It’s a very valuable piece of legislation for us. And I would ask for your ‘aye’ votes.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Lang moves that the House adopt Floor Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 1923. All those in favor say ‘aye’; those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. And the Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“Mr. Lang.”

“Please vote ‘aye’.” 09300069.doc 212  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Is there any discussion? The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1923 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 115 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. Having received the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1923 is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, on page 17 there is Senate Bill 1601. The Gentleman from Macoupin, Mr. Hannig. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Han… Third Reading. No, excuse me.”

“Mr. Clerk, I believe that the… there’s a Committee Amendment.”

“Mr. Clerk, please read the Amendment.”

“Mr. Hannig on the Amendment.”

“Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. This Amendment… The underlying Bill deals with variable interest rates. This proposal would allow the state to offer variable interest rate bonds up to 20 percent of the portfolio of General Obligation Bonds. So, it would give us another option, another tool when we negotiate with the bond houses and I believe that it’s in the best interest of our state and our citizens to take every opportunity of 09300069.doc 213  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 these low-interest rates. So, that’s what the proposal does. And I’d be happy to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? On that question, Mr. Black.”

“State your inquiry, Sir.”

“Mr. Clerk. Can you hang on for little while, Mr. Black?”

“We’re just trying to verify…”

“Okay. We will find out very, very quickly.”

“And I thank you for the inquiry. Mr. Clerk.”

“Representative Reitz on Floor Amendment #1. Mr. Hannig. Mr. Hannig on the Amendment.”

“Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. I thank Representative Reitz for filing the Amendment for me. 09300069.doc 214  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 The Amendment I just described is Amendment #1 and so, I would be happy to answer any questions. It’s… it allows the state to sell variable rate bonds up to 20 percent of the portfolio. And I move for the adoption of the Amendment.”

“Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Beaubien.”

“Thank you. Is there any further discussion? See… The Lady from Cook, Representative Mulligan.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Representative, this would deal with our General Obligation Bond portfolio. Variable rates, I guess the best way to explain it is, that when you do a mortgage rate, when you buy a house, you have several options as a potential homeowner. You can do a 30-year mortgage.”

“You can do a 15-year mortgage, a ten-year mortgage. Or you can get some of these variable rate mortgages. The State of Il…” 09300069.doc 215  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Well, Representative, the rates are down right now and so this would seem to be an opportunity to lock into these rates. It also gives the state another tool as we negotiate with the bond houses on some of the 15-and 20-and 30-year rates, to say, look, if you don’t want to give us good rates on those long bonds, we’ll take the shorter bonds. So…”

“I think it’s up to the… it would be up to the agency. That isn’t up to the State of Illinois to determine…”

“Yes… Yes, these types of bonds already exist in the bond market and other states use them and it would be up to the state, the Bureau of the Budget, on our behalf to negotiate these, as they do on every bond issue.”

“Well, Representative, if it would be… the advantage of the variable rate bonds are that you can generally get a lower interest rate on the front end. The banks or the bond houses will give you something closer to what’s the rate today because they’re not so concerned about what will be the case in 30 years. So, you can save money by issuing these bonds.”

“Issuing them now.”

“Well, Representative, we still have the option to convert the bonds if we think that we’ve reached the bottom of the interest rate cycle and we wanna convert.”

“But re… also, remember that, that at the time when we issue the bonds where we owe the most, that’s the time where we want to have probably the lowest interest rate.”

“Further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Hannig moves that the House adopt Floor Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 1601. All those in favor say ‘aye’; opposed say ‘no’. 09300069.doc 217  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 The ‘ayes’ have it. And the Amendment’s adopted. Any further Amendments?”

Speaker Novak: “Third Reading. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Hannig.”

“Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. The underlying Bill, which came over from the Senate, had to do with clarifying and bringing up to date some of the language that we have for municipal governments and how they can issue variable interest rate bonds. And then, of course, the Amendment that we just adopted that would apply to the state. So, that’s what the Bill is about. And I’d be happy to answer any questions. I’d ask for your ‘yes’ vote.”

“On that question, Mr. Black.”

“Yes, Sir. State your inquiry.”

“Mr…”

“Thank you. The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1601 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. Mitchell. Ms. Graham. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 102 voting ‘yes’, 13 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1601 is hereby declared passed. Mr. Hannig on Senate Bill 1075. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Hannig on the Amendment.”

“Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House. This proposal, which is an initiative of the Governor, would consolidate seven of the state’s sixteen existing bond authorities into a new Illinois Finance Authority. And we believe, and let me… and let me suggest that we believe that if we would do this that we could save as much as $1.5 million in annual savings and as much as $5.5 million that would be available to the General Revenue Fund as well, so that we could have a total of about $7 million that would be available to us in this time when we are struggling to find available cash. So, the…”

“Is there any discussion?” 09300069.doc 219  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“The… Well, let me just conclude, Representative, that the underlying agencies that we would roll into one would be the Illinois Rural Bond Bank, the Illinois Dep… Development Finance Authority, the Illinois Health Facilities Authority, the Illinois Education Facilities Authority, the Farm Development Authority, the Research Park Authority and the Illinois Community Development Finance Authority or Commission, which is a dormant agency. So, that’s what this proposal is about. We don’t reach out and affect any of the agencies or any of the bond authorities that affect our local governments and many of the other bonding authorities that exist in State Government will remain in place, as well. It just affects those seven. So, I’d be happy to answer any questions. I’d move for the adoption of the Amendment.”

“And on that Motion, Mr. Black.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Representative, I… the Governor will certainly want to do his best to find qualified people for these boards. And certainly, the people who are there, I think, can make the case of their expertise. You may have people in your district that you’d like to recommend. These people are gonna serve without pay on the board. So this is not a… you know, really a question of a job. This is a question of trying to find qualified people to serve on the board and I think that this Governor will work with us to insure that we can find those individuals.”

“The question is, would he be subject to confirmation?”

“I believe the answer is ‘yes’. Yes, he would.”

“Yeah. We would just combine the bonding authority. So, this Bill doesn’t even attempt to try to increase their authority. That would be a different kind of Bill that would do that.”

“Representative, I’m advised that it caps it at 23, of which 18 is presently outstanding. And I believe that that’s… that that’s what the current amounts would be if you put ‘em together. I could be wrong and would stand corrected if you can point that out, but we thought that it was just a combination.”

“Representative, we will still have experts from every part of these fields that will be a part of this agency that will work very closely with your community and mine as well as the others in order to ensure that those interests are met. But we also can gain some efficiency by having one person to be the legal advisor and one person to be the accounting person instead of each of these having their own staff and letting their own contract and having their own counsel and actually by combining they probably can get a 09300069.doc 223  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 better bid when they have to go out and hire counsel to advise them on certain things.”

“So, we think that there are efficiencies to be gained that are significant enough that we need to try to work this through. And I believe the Governor would be willing to sit with you and I and talk about people that you would like to see appointed and issues in areas that you and I as downstaters would want to ensure that were addressed. I believe that, Representative… that you, Representative and I have very much in common and I have faith in our Governor that he’s trying to represent all of the state and can do so in a proposal like this in a way that can save the State of Illinois significant money.”

“Yes.”

“I think instead of having seven we can have one.”

“As far as, and the same thing with accounting…” 09300069.doc 224  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“…and things of that nature.”

“I think that would be correct.”

“Yes, that’s correct, Representative.”

“But always remember that whether it’s the director of this agency or the director of transportation or the director of corrections, you and I still have the ability to appropriate their moneys…”

“…if… and to have the auditor general do investigations. We will still retain a certain degree of control over all of State Government, including this agency.”

Speaker Novak: “Any further discussion? Seeing none, the Gentleman moves that the House adopt Amendment #2… Floor Amendment #2 to Senate Bill 1075. All those in favor say 09300069.doc 225  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 ‘aye’; those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. And the Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“Mr. Hannig.”

“Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. The Amendment is the Bill. It’s an opportunity to save significant amount of dollars to consolidate state bureaucracy. I think it’s a good plan. And I ask for your ‘yes’ vote.”

“Thank you. Is there any discussion? The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1075 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’, 17 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1075 is hereby declared passed. Mr. Hoffman. Something wrong with your switch?”

“There’s something severely wrong with my speak switch, yes.”

“We’ll have…”

“Could you please call the electrician?”

“Yes, we will, Sir.”

“Thank you.” 09300069.doc 226  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Senate Bill 1621, Mr. Brosnahan. Out of the record. Senate Bill 1909, the Gentleman from St. Clair, Mr. Holbrook. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Holbrook on the Amendment.”

“Thank you, Speaker. House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1909 sets up a Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Foundation. This is the exact same wording as House Bill 3507 had that passed out of here 116-0 about two months ago. I’d ask for an ‘aye’ vote or I’ll take questions.”

“Is there any discussion? The Gentleman now moves that the House adopt Floor Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 1909. All those in favor say ‘aye’; those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. And the Amendment is adopted. Is there… are there any further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“Mr. Holbrook.”

“I ask for an ‘aye’ vote.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1909 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting 09300069.doc 227  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 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’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1909 is hereby declared passed. On page 11 of the Calendar is Senate Bill 275. The Lady from Cook, Representative Nekritz. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Representative Nekritz on the Amendment.”

“Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know that this Bill has been very heavily lobbied. This legislation is really about promoting bicycling in the State of Illinois and the safety of cyclists of all ages. This is the result of a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1998 in which the determination was made that cyclists are not intended users of the roadway, even though I think everyone agreed before then that they, in fact, were considered intended users of the roadway. The cite… What the result of that Supreme Court has been… the Supreme Court case has been that there’s been a strong disincentive for counties and municipalities and townships to proceed with bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, bicycle routes and those kinds of facilities and I think that that’s not good public policy for the State of Illinois. So, the cycling community is trying to 09300069.doc 228  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 remove that disincentive and this is the legislation by which we are going to do that. I introduced some legislation earlier on in this year that simply stated that cycling… cyclists are intended users of the roadway. The opponents to that legislation raised two major concerns that we heard over and over again. The first was that this legislation was going to somehow require them to upgrade the roadway to include bicycle lanes or wide shoulders on every roadway. The second concern that we heard was that somehow that the roadways were going to have to be maintained to a very high standard, much higher standard than is currently in place to make sure that no bicyclist ever fell on roadways. So, the legislation that I… that this Amendment does two things: first, it says, yes, that bicyclists are intended users of the roadway, but there is… it specifically states in the legislation that there is no obligation to upgrade the roadway or to reengineer the roadway. And the second thing it does is to say that there is no obligation to maintain to a higher standard than the counties and townships and municipalities are already maintaining the roadway. We are not breaking new ground on this leg… on this legislation. We are the only state in the Union where we have this issue. In 49 other states, bicyclists are treated the same as motor vehicles when it comes to liability with regard to local governments. So, this is not something that we are trying to put forward to create a new… a new standard with regard to bicycles. And for those that think that other states don’t have tar and 09300069.doc 229  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 chip roadways and that bicycles don’t do just fine on those, I was born and raised in Kansas, I’ve ridden many, many miles on tar and chip roadways in rural Kansas, so I’m very well aware of how bicycles can be fine on that. So, I would appreciate your support for this Bill. This is for the benefit of all cyclists in your district of all ages, children through adults. We’re hoping, once we get this legislation through, to really promote bicycling which is… We have a public health crisis in this country with regard to a lack of exercise and we also need to do what we can to address issues of air pollution and over reliance on oil and this is one way in which we can do that. But we must have this legislation before we can move with it… move ahead with alternate forms of transportation in Illinois. And I would appreciate your support.”

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

“Sponsor yields.”

“Thank you, Representative. The genesis of this legislation is in a 1998 Supreme Court case that determined that bicyclists are permitted users of the roadway but not intended users of the roadway. And what that did was it created disincentive for local governments to create bicycle facilities.” 09300069.doc 230  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Right now, there is complete immunity with regard to bicyclists whether you’re… if your seven-year-old falls in a four-foot pothole on a roadway as a result of negligence of the municipality, there is… there is no right to recover. So, yes, it does. It does reinstate bicyclists as intended users of the roadway.”

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

“Thank you, Speaker. To the Bill. Ladies and Gentlemen, this Bill came through our committee and I saw the Bill this year, I saw the Bill in a similar form last year. We all have issues that are near and dear to us and this is one that is near and dear to the Lady and she has put a considerable amount of time and effort into. When this issue first arose many of the proponents of this measure were staunch opponents. And the fact that today they line up in support of this measure is a testament to her resolve and to the changes and enhancements and improvements that have been made to this Bill. The Bill is reasonable. The Bill is sound public policy. We all have bicyclists in our district, be they adults, be they seniors, be they kids. We all want them to be able to ride in safety. We all want there to be an incentive for municipalities to allow them and to provide roadways that let them ride in safety. Out of deference to common sense, out of deference to sound public policy, out of deference to the heartfelt and lengthy efforts and accommodations and negotiations that were made by all interested parties in this and there are still opponents. I don’t want to misstate anything. But there were very sincere discussions 09300069.doc 232  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 to try to come up with the best Bill that they could that accomplished the desires of the Sponsors and the proponents. This Bill represents those efforts. And this Bill deserves your support for all those reasons. Thank you.”

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

“Sponsor will yield.”

“Yes.”

“Correct, Mr. Beaubien.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“Including the City of Chicago.”

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

Speaker Novak: “Mr. Black, your request is granted for a recorded vote on the Amendment. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Will, Mr. Meyer.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“The Amendment becomes the Bill, Sir.”

“The original Bill had a willful and wanton standard with regard to bicyclists. This Bill makes them intended users of the roadway which does create a negligence standard, but addresses the concern, the two concerns that we heard over and over again from the municipalities and counties and so forth with regard to that standard. And Sir, the Senate Sponsor of the legislation is here and agrees with the legislation as we’re changing it.”

“I don’t know, Sir.”

“Well, it is the belief of the bicycling community that this will provide greater protection for them while also removing the disincentive that we have seen around the state. The Grand Illinois… it’s the Grand Illinois Trail through northwest and north central Illinois is a perfect example of how the disincentive created by the Supreme Court case in 1998 has limited the development of bicycle facilities in this state.”

“Sir, it was not an agreed Bill when it went through the Senate and we continued to have numerous meetings throughout the entire Legislative Session and this is the result of a last ditch effort to try to get everyone on board. Now, I agree with you, it is not an agreed Bill, but it is in a compromise that we just reached, I believe, a week ago last Monday.”

“No, it…”

“Sure.”

“Sir, prior to 1998, prior to the Supreme Court case that made cyclists not intended users of the roadways, the standard in Illinois was a negligence standard and I… my guess is that there were somewhere between four and ten lawsuits a year around the state, that would have been a lot.”

“I know that’s what they believe. I disagree.”

“I’m sorry, Sir. Did you ask a question?”

“Because prior to the time that this… that the Supreme Court decided the case that is the reason we’re here, there were a minimal nu… a diminimous number of lawsuits every year and so, I’m relying on past experience for that.”

“Further discussion? The Lady from Peoria, Representative Slone.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill. The Sponsor of the Bill is to be commended for her work and her achievement in bringing a compromise to fruition. This has been a very intractable issue ever since the State Supreme Court decision in 1996 that a number of us have tried without success to bridge the gap between the parties on this and Representative Nekritz has achieved this. She’s got a Bill here that nobody is wildly enthusiastic about, 09300069.doc 242  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 but everybody feels she can live with. It deserves your support.”

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

“Thank you. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen. I rise in support of this Bill. I carried this Bill for the past two years and it’s gone through a lot of changes and a lot of conversations since then. The Bill… Some of the previous speakers spoke to the general outlines of this Bill, but seemingly did not look at the specific language that Representative Nekritz has very carefully worked out. And because of the language, the City of Chicago and the county of Cook are at least two municipalities that, in fact, have signed on to support this, so it’s not correct that no one is supportive. They care as much about liability as anybody. This specific language is intended to prevent lawsuits, is intended to prevent any kind of problems for municipalities because it’s very specifically says that there’s nothing that requires, that there’s no obligation to upgrade, widen or reengineer. There is no obligation to widen. It is incorrect to say that that is what this Bill does. This Bill, as amended now, really has very carefully worked through with the municipalities their exact concerns and that is why it deserves your support, your strong support. Of course, municipalities would like it if they weren’t liable for anything. All government agencies would like it if they had absolute immunity, but this is such an unfair result that the United… that the Illinois Supreme 09300069.doc 243  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Court has given us that this Bill goes partial way to restoring some liability and to elim… so that we can actually protect bicyclists, promote bicycling and protect… and prevent injuries for the bicyclists that are in all of our districts. Please give your… this your strong support.”

“Thank you. Representative Nekritz to close.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I appreciate the very spirited debate. I believe that the issues have been very clearly outlined. I just would like to respond to some statements that were read. That this would impose an impossible financial burden and that roadways would have to be maintained to a level that would be immaculate, I don’t know if that was the word that was used, for the use by bicyclists. As the previous speaker noted, we have very carefully tried to create exceptions for that and in fact, I believe we have by saying specifically that there is no obligation to maintain the roadway to any greater standard than currently exists for motor vehicles. In addition, there is no obligation to reengineer or upgrade the roadways. So, we have very carefully tried to address the concerns of the municipalities. This is not… For me, the… this issue is not about what really about liability. It is about the safety of bicyclists in this state, all of the bicyclists that you have in your district. We are not breaking new ground. There are some municipalities that are at least 09300069.doc 244  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 neutral on this Bill: the county of Cook, the City of Chicago. And I would appreciate your support. Thank you.”

“There has been a request for a Roll Call vote on this Amendment. The question… The Lady now moves that the House shall adopt Floor Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 275. 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 58 voting ‘yes’, 55 voting ‘no’, 2 voting ‘present’. And the Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

Speaker Novak: “Third Reading. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk. Representative, you wish to call this Bill? Mr. Clerk, move it to Third Reading and read the Bill.”

“Representative Nekritz.”

“I think this has been clearly debated. I’d appreciate your support.”

“Is there any discussion? Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Black.”

Speaker Novak: “Further discussion? The Gentleman from Fayette, Mr. Stephens.”

“There has been a request for a verification. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Molaro.” 09300069.doc 246  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Yes. You know, I wasn’t gonna rise for this, but I have to now because everybody keeps saying this. The opponents of this Bill are absolutely right. You are makin’ a bicyclist an intended user. Well, what I… what it says expressly in the Bill, which I don’t see why anybody hasn’t brought up and the Sponsor tried to, but nobody was listening, that if you put up a sign and say that it’s prohibited, then it’s prohibited. That’s it. This… Then you do not get the relief that this Amendment gives you. So, if you’re in all these counties that the Representatives are talking about that don’t like this Bill, all they gotta put up… put up a sign and say bicyclists are not intended users. That ends that. That’s all you have to do. So, her Bill makes a lot of sense to me. In other words, if there’s municipalities that are out there that say, we don’t like this, put up a sign and that relieves their liability. So, that’s what I… Thank you.”

“Further discussion? Mr. Lang.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the Lady’s Bill. You know, the comments that, do you want your grandchild to be an intended user when he or she is on his bike, is exactly the point of this Bill. Kids do ride bikes, people do ride bikes. In fact, more people ride bikes than ever because they don’t want to spend the money that a car costs. They don’t necessarily want to drive their car and take two gallons of gas to go three blocks. This is exactly the point, to make them intended users to 09300069.doc 247  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 make the roadways safer. So, I don’t understand why anybody raises that as a red herring. The truth is, that’s exactly what the Bill’s about and that’s what we want to do. It’s a good Bill. She worked very hard on it. She deserves an ‘aye’ vote.”

“Further discussion? Mr. Mautino.”

“Thank you and to the… to a couple of the previous speakers. We have a lot of concerns in the municipalities, but the original language of the Bill had a willful and wanton standard and that protected the cities. What happens if we don’t have that standard where we have a level of immunity for the cities in these situations is what happened in my home county. We’re on the Grand Illinois Trail. Our townships just said, we’re gonna stop the trail. We will not allow you to use our roads. We will go ahead and post signs for this. And so, I don’t think it gets to what we would like to see. I’d like to see promotion of that, but those court cases came about, those are in my home county, brought about by my townships for the exact reasons expressed by Representative Black. And in this situation, he is correct, we would have that potential liability. Myself, I think that… and I’ve carried this Bill as a Sponsor in the past. So, one of the… the hurdles that we could never get over was the increased standard. And I think that, that if we could have given that, you could have gotten the agreement from the municipalities because they know they would have some means of protection inside the Bill. So, I reluctantly 09300069.doc 248  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 rise in opposition. I appreciate the work that has gone into the Bill, but many of the statements by Representative Black are true and correct. It is my counties that brought the suits and my townships will not allow the Grand Trail to continue simply because we don’t have that language. So, on that, I would simply ask for a ‘no’ vote.”

Speaker Novak: “Further discussion? The Gentleman from Whiteside, Mr. Mitchell.” Mitchell, J.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, it’s starting to get a little absurd on this Bill, folks. I mean, if you wanna make children intended users of roadways, then come down to southern Illinois and see some of the roads that we struggle to keep at least passable for our automobiles. There is no reason for kids to be on ‘em. I can see a junior high kid flying down there in a race with his buddy because we’ve made him an intended user of the roadway. This makes absolutely no sense and to post ‘em all, to say ya can’t use ‘em. Why don’t we turn that around and say if you want ‘em to use ‘em, post ‘em so that they can say, hey, come on and get on our road. I mean, let’s just think about this for a minute. Now, you’re talkin’ about an unfunded mandate to counties, cities. It makes absolutely no sense. If any, any Bill ever deserved a ‘no’ vote, this is it. One size does not fit all here, folks. If it’s good for Chicago and some of the suburbs, that’s fine. Craft a Bill for your area, don’t try to say it works for everyone. And this is no reflection on the Sponsor. I’ve worked with her on some really good pieces of legislation 09300069.doc 249  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 and this is probably really good for her area, but it’s really bad for mine. Think about the entire state, that’s what we’re here to represent. Thank you.”

“Thank you. Representative Nekritz, you wish to close?”

“Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again, I think we have… all the arguments have been set forth in the very clear fashion. And I would appreciate your support.”

“The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 275 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? There has been a request for a verification. Have all voted who wish? Representative Jones. Mr. Giles. Monique Davis. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 60 voting ‘yes’, 53 voting ‘no’, 1 voting ‘present’. There has been a request for a verification. Once again, all staff and unauthorized personnel retire to the back of the chambers. All Members are to sit in their chairs. Mr. Clerk, poll the affirmatives.”

“Mr. Stephens on the verification.”

Speaker Novak: “Representative Giles in the chamber? Mr. Giles. Remove Mr. Giles.”

“Mr. Hoffman is near his chair.”

“Representative Saviano. Return… Mr. Saviano’s in the chamber. Mr. Giles has returned to the chamber.”

“Return Mr. Giles to the roll. Mr. Acevedo is in his chair.”

“Representative Pankau. Representative Pankau. Remove Representative Pankau.”

“Representative Winters. Representative Dave Winters. Remove Mr. Winters from the roll.”

“Representative Nekritz. The Lady wishes to put the Bill on Postponed Consideration. Representative O’Brien for a Motion.”

“Thank you. Is there leave of the Body? Leave being granted and the Motion is… Motion is granted. Mr. McCarthy, for what reason do you rise?”

“For the purpose of an announcement, Mr. Speaker.”

“State your announcement, Sir.”

“Thank you, Sir. Before the previous Bill, I was asked to announced that Chuck Vaughn was nice enough to set up a dessert table out here in the hallway behind me. The Bill took a little bit longer than we thought and there’s not much left out there, but if you’d like to go out and…”

“Is that low-fat dessert, Mr. McCarthy?”

“I don’t recommend dessert in the middle of the afternoon as you know, Mr. Speaker…”

“Is that dessert from the Atkin’s diet?”

“…but it is out there and Mr. Vaughn was nice enough to provide it and everyone is welcome to go out there and see what’s left. So, thank you.”

“Thank you. Mr. Stephens.”

“State your inquiry, Sir.”

“I believe, just one. The Rules allow one.”

“Yes.”

“Okay, Mr…”

“You’re welcome.”

“Mr. Clerk, committee schedule.”

“Mr. Black.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen, we don’t want any Members to leave the chambers yet. Please. Members, please be in their seats. Members please be in their seats. Mr. Black.”

“State your inquiry.”

“Mr. Black. I took the roll, but I did not take the record. I announced the ‘yes’ votes, the ‘no’ votes, and the ‘present’ votes and I stopped there. And then we went into the verification. And when the verification took the two individuals off the roll…”

“…Miss Nekritz…”

“So, I did not take the record.”

“Thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen, if we could have everyone in their seats. We’re going to go into committee and we’re gonna… and we’ll come back, reconvene at 6:30. But the Chair recognizes Mr. Moffitt. The Chair rises (sic-recognizes) Mr. Moffitt. Mr. Moffitt.”

“I join with Representative Moffitt in paying our respects to one of our brave young men from Bureau County and join with him in remembrances and extending our sympathies to the members of his family and friends, people of the City of Malden for the loss of this tremendous young man. Thank you for joining with us.”

“Thank you. Members are urged to attend their appropriate committees and the House will reconvene at 6:30. House will come to order. Mr. Clerk, Committee Reports.”

“Agreed Resolutions.”

Speaker Novak: “Thank you. Announcement of the Chair. Members, the intent of the Chair is to finish all our business tonight, late into the evening. Dinner arrangements, you’re on your own. You’re on your own for dinner arrangements. The Motion on Agreed Resolutions. All those in favor say ‘aye’; those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The Motion is adopted. Senate Bill 742. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill. Representative Hannig.”

“Mr. Hannig.”

“Yes. This is a… the first of three budget implementation Bills that I’d like to present. This one deals with Human Services. I can either explain it now or on Third Reading, Mr. Speaker, your pleasure.”

Speaker Novak: “Are there any questions on the Amendment? Seeing none, Mr. Hannig moves that the House adopt Floor Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 742. All those in favor say ‘aye’. The ‘ayes’ have it. And the Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.” 09300069.doc 259  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Mr. Hannig.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. Again, this is the Human Services Budget Implementation Act. It does a number of things. For example, it provides that the University of Illinois can now have pharmacy services as a purpose for which it can collect money to the tune of about a million dollars, in family care, we say that the match will go back to the fund that paid it. In the Katie Beckett Waiver we say that we’ll pay for these kind of children until age 21 instead of 18, which is what we’re doing already. In Medicare nursing home rates, those rates are frozen and the language simply adjusts that. We passed a Bill earlier by 114-2 dealing with the State Disbursements Unit, there was no effective date. This puts an effective date in the Bill. It adds federal funds earned by state universities as something that can be deposited by the Public Aid Recovery Fund. This will save us about 4.5 million. And authorizes the Department of Public Aid to establish criteria for the development of a Medicaid reimbursement methodology for payments to hospitals and for hospital residing long-term care services. And it also repeals some obsolete Sections and provides that public… and provides that the al… the regional Alzheimer’s disease centers will be paid from the Department of Public Aid instead of the Department of 09300069.doc 260  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Public Health. So, I’d be happy to answer any questions. And move for the passage of the Bill.”

“Is there any discussion? Mr. Black.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“There is… You are correct. There is not.”

“That is correct.”

“Further discussion? Representative Coulson.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Yeah. I was advised that that is not really a budget issue and that’s why the language was not in there in the first place. Should not have been…” 09300069.doc 261  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“…should not have been in there. Should not have been in there in the first place.”

“Yeah. Originally, we deleted all the IOC language ‘cause there’s new rules that have been set out.”

“I think some people may have misread what that… what that meant and so that was deleted.”

“So, the Bill does not address the issue of IOCs, not at all. So, whatever’s on the statutes stays in the statutes.”

“Yes.”

“That’s correct, Representative.”

“No, Representative, and in fact, the agency, the Department of Public Aid, has already filed rules beginning to implement the new system. So, we’re in tune with that.”

“Exactly.”

“Further discussion? Seeing none, ‘Shall Senate Bill 742 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 103 voting ‘yes’, 13 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. Having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 742 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 744. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Hannig.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House. This is the budget implementation Bill for education. And 09300069.doc 263  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 again, I’d suggest if we could, could we just adopt the Amendment and then I will explain the Bill on Third Reading?”

Speaker Novak: “Correct. Is there any discussion? Mr. Mitchell.” Mitchell, J.: “Fine.”

“Okay. We’ll do it… Mr. Hannig. Mr. Hannig now moves that the House adopt Floor Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 744. All those in favor say ‘aye’; opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“Mr. Hannig.”

“Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House. This is the budget implementation Bill that provides that the spending that we put into the budget matches what is on the statutes. So, the provisions of this Bill increase the foundation by $250. The Governor suggested that we do that, we did that in the spending plan, this would put it in statute. We changed the basis in calculation for the low-income concentration level. The transition assistance… the transitional assistance that the Governor talked about, so that no school would be a loser, that becomes a statutory part of this Bill. The Bill deals with the charter schools and provides that the State Board 09300069.doc 264  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 of Education will provide transitional impact aid payments to school districts after a charter has been granted. The Governor suggested that we discontinue gifted education, this will do that. There are some issues also at the higher ed level. The Illinois Community College Board and the City College of Chicago have come to an agreement and this Bill puts that agreement into law. That has to do with the transfer of a portion of the maintenance fund. ICCB also has determined that community college should establish a combined tuition and fee rate for calculations, this does that by statute. And also the Governor’s Illinois Future Teachers Corps replaces the ITEACH and there’s language to allow that to transition through the process. So, that’s the explanation for the proposal. And I’d be happy to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? Mr. Mitchell.” Mitchell, J.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor yields.” Mitchell, J.: “Representative Hannig, during our discussions with John Filan and according to the Governor’s promise to fulfill the districts so that no school district will lose revenue from FY04 and that transitional assistance payments will be made to school districts identified by the State Board of Education as receiving less revenue in FY 2004 then FY 2003. Could you tell me how this will be accomplished?” 09300069.doc 265  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Yes. I think at the… the state board will look at the from a… We will establish, by statute, this fund which is in the budget, as well and then those school districts, who believe that they have lost money, will be under rules that will be produced by the State Board of Education will then petition the state board and I’m certain they’ll be requested to show how they lost money or why they lost or how they lost money and how much. They’ll petition the state board and the state board will then have a program in which they can be reimbursed, so…” Mitchell, J.: “So, basically, the state board is gonna set rules of parameters by which to determine whether or not the school districts request is valid. Is that what you’re saying?”

“Well, the point we’re trying to make is that if they have a net reduction in their overall school aid, then they can apply and they should apply and should receive the difference in this transitional assistance. The state board will, I think, set up a system that sort of formalizes how that is done.” Mitchell, J.: “Okay. Will there be any kind of an appeals process to maybe the… to the BOB or someone else in case there’s a disagreement between the State Board of Education and the school district per se? Because my understanding is the school district… the school board association really is not real keen on this transitional assistance program.”

“Well, Representative, I think that the state board would and I think that’s a good point. The state board 09300069.doc 266  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 should set up rules for appeal, as well. And that would give any school district that felt that they came out on the short end an opportunity to have a… have their case restated in case they think that someone missed their point. And we believe now that the transitional money is really down to around 2 million, even though we appropriated much more than that, so I don’t think we’ll have a problem of not enough money.” Mitchell, J.: “No… I think and I agree with you. I think with the additional money that’s in the budget there should be more than enough transitional funds. There may be some disagreements between individual districts and the state board as to whether or not they lost or how much they lost and I think it may be that someone may have to make a decision on an appeal of some kind that, if the district feels they can certainly verify their loss and it falls within the Governor’s promise or Director Filan’s promise that someone else other than the… David Woods, for instance, may have to make a decision on that.”

“And we’ll still be around, Representative, and you know, we can revisit the issue in the fall if we think that the state board is blatantly unfair. I don’t think that they will be, but if someone alleges that, we can take a look at that.” Mitchell, J.: “Well, and some of that could very easily fit into the waiver process, in a kind of a strange way as a reverse waiver from the district, so that it would come to us. Is it your intention to have the transitional payments 09300069.doc 267  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 be subject to appropriation and make school districts eligible only to the difference between 2004 appropriation and the amount paid from the 2003 appropriation?”

“We believe that this will be a one-time deal. And it is appropriated this year and it should be the difference in the net appropriation, the net money that the school district received for the appropriate funds between the two school years.” Mitchell, J.: “All right. It’s my understanding, too, that this will probably be a one-time shot. Hopefully, if the economy is better, we won’t be facing these kind of questions. In the case that the poverty grants are not fully funded in a fiscal year, my understanding and I believe there’s language in the budget implementation Bill that states that if we can’t fund the poverty grants according to what the requests are from the school districts that there could be some proration that happens.” Hannig: Yeah. The way it’s set up is that the general state aid, the foundation level, will be paid first and then we’ll pay the poverty, if there isn’t enough, it becomes prorated.” Mitchell, J.: “Okay. Now, if that does become prorated, that’s a potential loss to school districts. Would it then fall under the transitional assistance program and a request be made from the school districts to get that money through transition aid for at least one year?” 09300069.doc 268  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“I think if they fall below the ’03, that number we talked about, I think you make a valid point, Representative.” Mitchell, J.: “Okay.”

“And they could then apply for transitional money.” Mitchell, J.: “Okay. Then…”

“We could also…” Mitchell, J.: “Then that bags one more question, Gary and that would be if, in fact, the… because of the change in the poverty grant, there was going to be a lot more money within that particular request from school districts. If that’s then prorated to the point that the transitional assistance money is not enough, would we then also prorate the transitional money and of course, is there anything in the budget implementation Bill that would address that issue?”

“Representative, the actual language in the Bill is silent on that. First of all, I would hope that would never happen. Secondly, if it would happen, we would maybe consider the possibility of a supplemental appropriation.” Mitchell, J.: “Okay. So, then…”

“There would be alternatives.” Mitchell, J.: “So, then it would not be unusual that there would be at least a small supplemental sometime in the fall, basically, after that April deadline that’s set so that we know early on, I guess, before the end of the school year how much districts would need so that we could do that if at all possible.” 09300069.doc 269  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Yeah. Representative, we hope we’re not in this worst case scenario that I think you’re explaining, but certainly if that happens, we’ll be back in November and we can deal with the issue.” Mitchell, J.: “One other question, Representative. The poverty grant language, I know, that, you know, that we worked very hard to get a change on that so that we’re not tied to the census, but there may be districts that when we look at this new method of determining poverty that the census is actually better for them. Is there any provision for at least the one year that a district may go to either/or the poverty grant by the DHS count or the poverty grant by the more traditional census count?”

“Representative, the Bill provides that we use the DHS numbers, so there’s no… there’s no…” Mitchell, J.: “Okay. So there won’t be any leeway.”

“…there’s no options.” Mitchell, J.: “All right. Now, a little question. If a district configures the difference between the DHS count and the census count and considers that a loss, could they then submit that to the State Board of Education as a possible loss to the district according to the 2003 numbers? I realize I’m getting’ some way out things, but I know how superintendents think.”

“Well, I think, Representative, first of all you’d have to look at the total…” Mitchell, J.: “Right.”

“…between the two years…” 09300069.doc 270  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Mitchell, J.: “I agree.”

“…then you have to show that you actually had a loss.” Mitchell, J.: “Yeah.”

“And so you may…” Mitchell, J.: “They could subtract that loss against the total net…”

“Yeah, yeah.” Mitchell, J.: “…or the total growth and then come up with a net that would either be a gain or a loss and submit that.”

“Yeah. So, you would have to first demonstrate that you had a loss between the two years in…” Mitchell, J.: “Right, right, right, right.”

“…overall a net loss…” Mitchell, J.: “I understand.”

“…and then at that point you…” Mitchell, J.: “Okay.”

“I think you could come to the state board and…” Mitchell, J.: “So, these are the kind of rules or parameters that the state board needs to put into their logic and get the superintendents so that they can underhand… understand how to calculate the gains or losses. Representative, I appreciate your answers and I know, as usual, education funding gets tricky. If there’s another way that superintendents can figure out a way to show a loss, I’m sure they will. Thank you very much.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from DeKalb, Mr. Wirsing.” 09300069.doc 271  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Thank you, Sir. Will the Gentleman yield?”

“Gentleman yields.”

“Repre…”

“Well, go ahead, Representative.”

“Yeah, I agree with you, Representative. I think what you read is exactly correct.”

“That’s the key.”

“Absolutely. That’s the key.”

“Yes, Representative, I agree.”

“Yes, absolutely.”

“We agree.”

“Very much so.”

“Further discussion? Mr. Giles.”

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

“Sponsor will yield.”

“…for a question?”

“Sponsor will yield.” 09300069.doc 273  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Representative Hannig, couple things that I wanna talk about dealin’ in higher education and some of the changes made. One is concerning the career technical education, the adult education program. What are the changes in the funding mechanism for this particular program?”

“Yeah. I think we just… we used to give money to the state board and then it ended up with the community colleges and we just sort of took the shortcut and went in and appropriated the money directly to the Illinois Community Colleges.”

“Will…”

“And that requires a statutory change and that’s what this is about. It’s…”

“So, this is a required statutory…”

“Yes.”

“This is a required statutory change and it…”

“But it is an agreement, Representative, between the Chicago schools and the Illinois Community College Board. I’m sorry. Between the State Board of Educa… the board of higher ed and the community colleges.”

“Will it provide more or less or as… the same to the community colleges?”

“It’s the same, Representative, it’s just that we take a shortcut to get to the same point.”

“Okay. The other changes, the tuition and fees, what are the actual changes proposed in this Amendment?”

“Yeah. They… You know, some of the reimbursements are based on your tuition and some schools would have maybe a 09300069.doc 274  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 low tuition and high fees and other schools would have high fees… or low fees and high tuition and even though the student might be paying the same amount, the reimbursement would be different because it’s based on tuition. This said that you combine the two, then we’ll base it on that and it’s really more of a true measure of what the students are paying.”

“So, this is… there’s no way in this particular language that would encourage a university to do either/or or do they have the option of…”

“Well, they can…”

“…doing what they think that is…”

“…they can still do what they think, but this takes away any incentive for the universities to maybe try to charge lower tuition and higher fees and look like they’ve got this low tuition.”

“Okay.”

“So, we look at the total amount that the student pays which we think is a more true measure of what we should be measuring, not just the tuition part.”

“Is there any changes in this Amendment, I didn’t see it according to our analysis, dealing with the MAP Program?”

“No.”

“Are we still getting the same amount of moneys in for the fifth…”

“Now, this…”

“…that is the general for the fifth-year student?”

“Yeah.” 09300069.doc 275  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Is that still the same, that’s no changes?”

“This is a stand… these are statutory changes…”

“Statutory, okay.”

“…and they do not affect the spending levels. They simply… maybe in some cases affect how the money is spent, but in MAP there are no changes.”

“Okay. The last thing, the Illinois Future Teachers Corps, this replaces the ITEACH teacher shortage scholarship program. What do you know, if you can recall, the genesis of why this program replaced… I guess, maybe we’re just changing the name, but is the program similar or it’s the same or different?”

“Representative, this is… this is an initiative from the Governor and it’s an effort to try to get qualified, young people who are thinking about teaching to agree that an exchange for some additional aid, student assistance, that they will agree to teach in areas that are either in a shortage area or hard-to-staff schools. And so it’s a recognition that… or it’s an incentive program to try to get some very, potentially, very good teachers into these difficult areas.”

“Is there a dollar amount for this program? Is that dollar amount exemplary of, I guess, the amount of funds that’s available for the program? Is there…”

“My recollection is that it’s about $7 million…”

“Seven million?”

“…that what somebody’s think, but that’s not in this Bill, it’s in the spending Bill.” 09300069.doc 276  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Okay. And… Okay, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative.”

“Further discussion? Mr. McCarthy.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Gentleman yield?”

“Sponsor yields.”

“The last question you just answered, Representative Hannig, as far as the $7 million, was that an increase, a decrease or…”

“Representative, this is not a spending Bill. This is a…”

“I understand that. But you estimated it was $7 million to Representative Giles. Do you know if that’s an increase or a decrease?”

“We believe… I believe that it’s an increase, but I don’t have my notes on that Bill in front of me because this is a substantive Bill not a spending Bill.”

“Okay. And as far as the five-year commitment that you are supposed to teach for five years in order to… to, you know, pay back this scholarship money.”

“Yeah, that’s in this Bill.”

“Okay. It looks like we added in this year, that before you could teach at a public, private or parochial preschool or an elementary or high school. This year we changed it so you can still teach at a public, private or parochial preschool, but your… if you’re in a parochial elementary school, your five-year commitment doesn’t meet the demands of the Bill. Is that correct?” 09300069.doc 277  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“I don’t think that we see that at all in the statute, Representative.”

“Can I show you where to look in the Bill?”

“Okay.”

“If you look at the bottom of page 59, it is lined out and put in there, right in front of elementary or secondary, it now says ‘an Illinois public’. In front of preschool, it still has all three: public, private or parochial. I mean, was that an intentional move in the Bill to make sure that parochial elementary and parochial high schools would not meet the requirements of this?”

“Representative, this is the Governor’s proposal that we’re trying to work with and I can’t speak for his intentions. It may have been an oversight on his part. It may have been intentional. I don’t know.”

“Okay. So, you would… maybe you… would you assume that that was part of the Future Teachers Corps legislation then?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. The other thing about the transitional money that Representative Mitchell was asking you. Many times during Representative Smith’s committee, the superintendent and Mr. Filan spoke of that they would match the transitional money minus the one-time grants that are in fiscal year 2003. We did ask him a couple times to list what those one-time grants… we talked about it many times in committee, but I don’t see anything in the language there on page 11 that talks about the operations to say 09300069.doc 278  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 what one-time grants would not be part of a transitional formula.”

“So…”

“They talked about one-time grants that came with 2003. I don’t know if those were capital grants or whatever, but they were things that were obviously a one-time thing, maybe you applied under a grant form. So, the last year…”

“The first year example, the technology money was…”

“Okay.”

“…awarded on like a rotating basis. So, my school may have gotten the money this year, but there was no expectation that they would get it next year. So, it’s not really fair for…”

“But is there anything… is there anything in this Bill that says that will not be included when they do the transitional formula, ‘cause I don’t see that?”

“I think the State Board of Education has made that clear, that they’re looking at continuing kind of lines and they’ll formalize that through the Rules, Representative.”

“So, you feel that the language in this Bill is firm enough that they can do that by Rule and make sure that the one-time grants…”

“Yeah. The appropriation was set up so that we would not include those, those kind of programs that like rotate or they’re awarded to school districts based on some application, but not on a consistent basis. But we have other ones, other programs, that are awarded to schools on 09300069.doc 279  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 a continuing basis and the state board will set it up on those programs, on those lines in the budget.”

“Okay. The other thing was, Representative Mitchell kept talking about, like a school district would make this application. The way the Bill is written it looks like on April 1 of next year the state board automatically… I mean, my school districts don’t have to do that for the transitional funding. Will the state board do that automatically or is there something in here that says each school district has to monitor the amount or… or is it the way I read it correct?”

“Well, the state board will have the discretion to operate the fund. We’ll, obviously, still be an oversight agency.”

“Correct.”

“I mean, the Legislature always has the authority to come in and write laws if we feel that the rules are not correct and of course, there’s always JCAR, as well.”

“But… Okay. So…”

“But we’re giving the authority to the state board to set this up because we feel that they’re the best and you know, that they understand the system the best and just like Representative Mitchell mentioned, there are a lot of nuances and possibilities that you have to deal with, so we’re not trying to anticipate all those, but I think the people of the state board can and will.”

“But you assume from the writing of this Bill that the state board will automatically do this and that 09300069.doc 280  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 individual districts don’t have to wait ‘til April 1 and file applications or something. They’ll automatically look at what they got in 2003, by April 1 of 2004 estimate what they’re gonna get for that fiscal year and then set up the transitional funding.”

“That’s a good possibility, Representative. I mean, I can’t really speak for exactly how the state board will do it. We’re trying to give them some flexibility and not tie their hands and see how…”

“And at that point, would we then have to pass a supplemental Bill for them to appropriate that money?”

“No. There’s money already in the budget and we think there’s actually more than enough money already in the budget to cover all the transitional costs.”

“Okay. Well, thank you. To the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I just say that the future teacher program did come through my committee. We discussed it there, we discussed it on the floor. I never remember the Sponsor at the time telling us that he was intentionally taking out private and parochial elementary and high schools, the Bill does read that way. So, if he didn’t intend that, I hope the Governor would correct that through an Amendatory Veto.”

“Further discussion? Mr. Smith.”

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

“To the Bill.”

“I rise in support of this legislation and I wanna thank the Members of the Appropriations Committee for their input as we put the… our budget together and I think most of what 09300069.doc 281  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 we approved last week in the budget and what we’re implementing with this Bill was a result of the work that our committee did. So, I thank the Members for that. Whatever else you think about the budget, I think we can be very proud when we leave here this evening or tomorrow morning, whenever it may be, that we have produced a very good spending plan for education. We’re guaranteeing, with this legislation, that no school district in the state will receive less money than they are or have during this current fiscal year and indeed, many of them will receive much more. And we’re making sure that we’re sending money to those districts who need help the most, those with the highest level of poverty count. So, I think, given the fact that we’re… we’ve looked at a $5 billion budget deficit, the fact that education is doing as well as it is, is something that we can all be proud of. I commend Governor Blagojevich for saying that education would be held harmless from the beginning and I urge everyone to vote for this Bill to make sure that it happens.”

“Mr. Mitchell, for what reason do you rise, Sir?” Mitchell, J.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My name was used in debate and I’d just like to try to explain to some folks, had a lot of people come up wanting to know where I’m at on this issue. My vote is not indicative of how I think Representative Hannig has done nor the Appropriation Committee. I think they’ve done a fine job. What this Bill does it simply tells the State Board of Education and 09300069.doc 282  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 the budget folks that it’s okay to spend the money that we authorize for ya. It’s a plan to spend the money. And what we were talking about with the payments and an application process, that simply by applying is not gonna be a form probably that districts fill out, it’s just that districts have to pay attention to the fact that there’s money out there to assist them if they lost money. If they figure ways that they lost money, they submit those ways and believe you me, superintendents are really good at figuring out ways. Those will either be approved or denied. If they’re approved, then they will get a supplemental payment from the money that’s there. What we were trying to establish with Representative Hannig was the fact that if, in fact, there are more needs out there, accepted losses, then we will probably need a supplemental. All of that simply says, this is the way we’re gonna spend the money. If you voted for the education money, then you certainly should vote for this because if you don’t you’re tellin’ the budgeteers, yeah, I approved the money you put in education, but you can’t spend it. So, one vote deserves the other and that’s my explanation. That oughta be about as clear as mud. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? Mr. Davis, Will Davis.” Davis, W.: “Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor will yield.” 09300069.doc 283  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Davis, W.: “Representative, as I’m reading the analysis on the computer, it says that the increase, I guess that’s general state aid, is $250. Is that correct?”

“Yes, that’s correct.” Davis, W.: “Can you explain to me what the basis for determining that it would be $250 is?”

“Okay. Representative, the Governor proposed that amount. That is the amount that is in the spending Bill. So, unless we actually change the statute, the old statute says $4,560. We need to increase that by $250 to reflect the fact that there’s more money in the spending Bill this year. If we don’t pass this Bill, the state board will simply pass out the old amounts of money and the rest of that money will just sit in the bank. So, I think what Representative Mitchell said is exactly true. We need this money to drive the appropriations to the school districts in a way that we intended it to be spent.” Davis, W.: “Thank you very much, Representative.”

Speaker Novak: “Any further discussion? The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 744 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. 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 94… 93 voting ‘yes’, 22 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 744 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 874. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.” 09300069.doc 284  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Mr. Hannig.”

“Yes. On the Amendment, I would move for the adoption of the Amendment and I’ll explain the Bill on Third Reading, Mr. Speaker.”

“Mr. Hannig moves that the House adopt Floor Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 874. All those in favor say ‘aye’; opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“Mr. Hannig.”

“Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. This is the third budget implementation Bill and I’ll hit some of the highlights. It authorizes CMS to direct the transfer of information technology functions from agencies. It changes the names of DCCA and the Bureau of the Budget. It amends several statutes to require companies during business with the government, that is the State of Illinois, to have their affiliates collect and remit sales tax. It has a portion authorizing CMS to make recommendations to the Governor for initiatives to reorganize and restructure and reengineer the business and 09300069.doc 285  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 process of the state. It deals with the issue of the Road Fund. It continues funding for the Secretary of State and State Police from the Road Fund. And it sets the funding levels for ’04 at the same level as ’03 which is $130.5 million. And further says that in ‘05 and thereafter the level reverts back to the previous level of 30.5 million. And the Bill clarifies that the Road Fund money can be transferred to GRF as appropriate by statute and any additional expenditures authorized by the Road Fund are to be repaid from the GRF Fund, the General Revenue Fund, in succeeding years when there is a positive balance in the General Revenue Fund under government… generally accepted accounting principles. It allocates that the new money collected under the fee increases will go to the General Revenue Fund, the increases will go to the General Revenue Fund. It talks about the federal workforce training and creates the Federal Workforce Training Fund to receive that money. It clarifies that the Arts Council is an agency of the state. And it provides for the Mandatory Arbitration Fund in the courts that for one year that they’ll be increased flexibility for our court systems so that they can make do with the money that they have and save the State of Illinois some General Revenue Funds. So, they were able to hit the mark for their General Revenue spending by using some of their other funds and this authorizes them to do that for one year. Those are the highlights of the proposal. I’d be happy to answer any questions.” 09300069.doc 286  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

Speaker Novak: “And on that question, the Gentleman from Bureau, Mr. Mautino.”

“Thank you. Will the Gentleman yield?”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Representative Hannig, I appreciate the work that you and the appropriation staff have done this year. I have some… there’s been some great concern on the Road Fund and it’s… so I wanted to find out if some of the language… Originally, the Senate, the proposals that they had, had local projects being spent from the state construction account. Is there any language that would allow for that in here?”

“There is no language in this Bill, Representative.”

“It’s my understanding, as well, from the bureau that that language had been removed. There also was not a repayment clause for the Secretary of State, State Police which is a diversion. That language is in this Bill?”

“It says that any expenditures authorized by this Bill from the Road Fund, that is the increases, are to be repaid from the General Revenue Fund in the next succeeding year that the General Revenue Fund has a positive budgetary balance under the generally accepted accounting principles.”

“That’d be like 1995. Yeah, yeah.”

“It has happened, Representative.”

“No, no. And I appreciate that. And we had concerns because there weren’t payback provisions. Now, my… we have one thing we had asked about was the sunsets towards these 09300069.doc 287  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 diversions and as I understand, because of the times that we’re in, we need to have a continuing balance so we don’t lose the bond rating. Was that your understanding, as well?”

“Yeah. Representative, when you look at the fees that were assessed against, not only the Road Fund but the other funds, it’s important that when we talk to people out East about our bond rating that we can demonstrate that those are ongoing revenues as opposed to one-time revenues.”

“Well, with that, I do thank you for workin’ with us to get some language in for some protections and I know that as the economy picks up, it’s one of our main issues. To the Bill. I do rise in support of this legislation. It’s changed greatly. And we face a time, right now, where we’ve got an unprecedented deficit, not only here but in all 50 states, well in excess of a hundred billion dollars. This is one of the funds that we… and especially in downstate guard, so it’s good to see there are some pay… repayment clauses in there. When we go forward on this, I would like to see a definite number placed in there as when we reach a fund balance like 750 million or 500 million dollars for yearend. Because when you use the term ‘generally accepted accounting principles’ that draws in all the other pension obligations and debts and we don’t hit that number. So, I think that’s somethin’ that we want to look towards in the future and then once we get back on our seat… on our feet, fund the… get rid of that sunsets on or put the sunset in for any of those diversions. But I 09300069.doc 288  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 thank you for workin’ with us on that and thank you for assisting us in reducing the Road Fund diversions by $65 million. It’s my understanding if that money would be divided out and has been structured back to some of those districts who were more hard hit and it’ll keep our construction projects going. And so, like with some other Bills today, it is all about jobs and downstate we count on those. Thank you.”

“Further discussion? Mr. Black. Mr. Black.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“I’m advised that the Bill authorizes CMS to direct the transfer of information technology functions from any agency, department or board or commission to CMS.”

“Yes.” 09300069.doc 289  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

Speaker Novak: “Any further discussion? The question is, ‘Shall…”

“Oh, I’m sorry.”

“Excuse me.”

“Representative, the… in the past, they were allowed to take the administrative charge or collect the administrative costs against what was appropriated, but since they’re obviously working with more than just the 09300069.doc 290  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 appropriation, it seems fair, I believe, to say that all moneys that are involved should participate in the cost of the administration.”

“It talks about the percent of local tourism funds, Representative, is what I’m… what the language actually says.”

“Okay. Representative, I think…”

“Yeah. I think… Yeah. I think I misunderstood your question, Representative, and so what you’re saying is right. I mean, I don’t know that the state would even know 09300069.doc 291  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 how much your local people have. I suppose they could ask or somehow try to find out, but what I think…”

“Yeah. And…”

“And just let me say that that’s certainly not the intent of this Bill, Representative. So, we’ll have that on the record right now.”

“Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 874 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. Reitz. Mr. Reitz. Take the record. On this question, there are 76 voting ‘yes’, 39 voting ‘no’, 1 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 874 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 4. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“Representative Currie on the Amendment.”

“Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. This Amendment would make the Earned Income Tax Credit refundable. So, it would be identical to a Bill that we passed as a House Bill earlier in the season. The good news is that the Governor’s Bureau… Office of Management and Budget believes that we can fund the refundability part of the credit by using Maintenance of Effort dollars if we don’t spend those dollars in the TANF Program, we not only have to spend them next year, but in fact we will receive less federal participation. So, I hope you will join me in supporting this Amendment and then the Bill that extends the life of the Earned Income Tax Credit when the Amendment is adopted.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the Lady… Mr… Representative Mulligan.”

“Because the… in fact, it wasn’t clear we could find the support for it at all. The Governor’s Office concluded that this is one… one kind of thing that the Federal Government will accept as a Maintenance of Effort spending program in respect to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. If we do not spend the required Maintenance of Effort dollars, not only will we have to spend them next 09300069.doc 293  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 year, but we will get a reduced amount of federal support for the whole TANF program.”

“This will cost about 28 million. The other portion will be spent in school programs. I have a chart from the Bureau of the Budget.”

“That’s right.”

“So, some of it is child care. We are spending a good deal of money on Maintenance of Effort, but there was expected to be a $70 million shortfall and this will… will take care of 28 million of that shortfall.”

“Right. Way… In fact, it does credit… does work for this credit, other states have had such programs approved.”

“Ours is set at 5 percent of the federal earned income tax…”

“No, I don’t know that we have an actual count, but the estimate that’s been… that the Office of Management and Budget is similar to the numbers that we have seen offered by Voices for Illinois Children and other advocacy organizations.”

“The way the Amendment reads, the refundability portion would be contingent on the availability of federal Maintenance of Effort dollars or TANF money.”

“No, but the refundability provision would be dependent on federal funds.”

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

“Further discussion? Seeing none, the Lady moves that the House adopt Floor Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 4. All those in favor say ‘aye’; all those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. And the Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. I wish to associate myself for my opening and closing on this Third Reading measure with the eloquent remarks of my colleague, Representative Black. He said it better than it could otherwise have been said. I urge your ‘aye’ votes on Senate Bill 4.”

“The question is, ‘Shall Senate… Senate Bill 4 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 116 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 4 is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, Senate Bill 706. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“Representative Currie. Mr. Davis on Floor Amendment #1.” Davis, S.: “Yes. Thank you, Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. House Amendment #1 is an initiative by Secretary of State Jesse White. It amends and creates… this Amendment creates the Inspector General for the Secretary of State’s Office. The IG is appointed by the SOS and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This Amendment deals with the duties of the IG, the term, the qualifications, the authority that is given to the IG for the Secretary of State’s Office, subpoena powers, complaints, retaliation. It also deals with rule procedures, investigations, collective bargaining and it deals with the current investigators. I’d be happy to answer any questions on the Amendment.”

“Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Millner. Your light’s on, Mr. Millner. Is there anyone seeking any recognition? Mr. Parke. Mr. Parke.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Further discussion? Mr. Black.”

“Sponsor will yield.”

Speaker Novak: “Thank you, Sir. Any further discussion? Seeing none, the Gentleman moves that the Floor Amendment #1 be adopted to Senate Bill 706. All those in favor say ‘aye’; opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The Amendment’s adopted. Any further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“Mr. Davis.” Davis, S.: “I would just simply ask for an ‘aye’ vote. Be ready to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 706 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 116 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 706 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 740. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.” 09300069.doc 302  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Turner.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 740 does simply this, it… it allows Mt. Sinai Hospital to now have a designation as a children’s hospital. And what this means is… is that this will generate over a million dollars to our state. As you know, Mt. Sinai Hospital sees some 85 thousand patient care for children alone. They’re a level three pediatric unit. And… and working with the Department of Public Aid, we discovered that in giving this hospital this designation it would generate the dollars that I mentioned earlier. Mt. Sinai Hospital is located in my district. Over 80… over 55 percent of its patients are Medicaid… Medicaid eligible. And this designation, as I say, would do a lot to help the hospital and help it to stay alive and keep it afloat. I move for the adoption of Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 740.”

"Thank you. Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Parke.”

"The Sponsor yields.”

“What did you say?”

“No, this is not 461.” 09300069.doc 303  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“It doesn’t change the funding. What it does is… there are 12 hospitals in and around the Ch… the Illinois/Missouri area that are designated as children’s hospital. And because of the… because of this designation it would require… it would allow this hospital to generate another million bucks that would come to our state in terms of federal dollars. This was brought to our attention through the Department of Public Aid. And they are the ones that thought that this would be very beneficial to this hospital.”

“This is no assessment. It takes nothing away from any other hospital. It does not hurt Children’s Hospital or, I think the hospital down by St. Louis, I think it’s St. Mary’s Hospital… yeah, but they’re 12 around the state, it does not affect any of them. In fact, what it does is generate more money, in particular for Mt. Sinai Hospital, as a result of receiving this designation. Actually, a million bucks comes to the state. A lot of it which would go to help underwrite the care that this hospital provides.”

“Not a soul.”

“Not a soul.” 09300069.doc 304  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

"Further discussion? Representative Hamos.”

“Thank you, Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen. I rise in support, but I would like to ask the Sponsor some questions. Will he yield, please?”

“Yes.”

"The Sponsor yields.”

“Thank you. Representative Turner, as I understand, this Amendment only applies to Mt. Sinai Hospital. Is that correct?”

“That’s correct.”

“And I also underst…”

“At this time.”

“I’m sorry?”

“At this time, it only applies to Mt. Sinai Hospital.”

“Okay. But this… okay, this Amendment only applies to Mt. Sinai Hospital?”

“That’s correct.”

“Okay. I also understand from the Department of Public Aid that this new funding for Mt. Sinai Hospital will not reduce the Medicaid funding of any other hospital provider in the state. Is this true?”

“That’s correct.”

“Okay, thank you. And I do rise in su… support. And I hope everyone will… will support this Bill.”

"Further discussion? Mr. Daniels.”

"Further discussion? Seeing none, the Gentleman moves that the House adopt Floor Amendment #1. All those in favor say ‘aye’; all those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

"Third Reading. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

"Mr. Turner.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that in the description of the Amendment, it pretty much states what the Bill is. I did misspeak in terms of saying that this hospital… that 55 percent of it’s Medicaid… 55 percent of its utilization is Medicaid. Actually, at Mt. Sinai 82 percent of the patients are Medicaid eligible. So, it’s much higher. Of that 55 percent threshold is just what’s needed in terms of our qualifying for this designation. And I move for the adoption of Senate Bill 740.”

"Any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall the House pass Senate Bill 740?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those oppased… 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 115 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 1 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 740 is hereby 09300069.doc 306  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 declared passed. Senate Bill 785. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

"Mr. Dunkin on the Amendment.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. This Bill… Senate 785 will preserve and try to expand the Ill… the existing Illinois human infrastructure as it relates to the film industry. It creates a film production… for film production companies a 25 percent tax credit for ind… for those individual entities or film production companies that hire Illinois residents regarding their wage and salaries. This is a Floor Amendment. I… request an ‘aye’ vote.”

“Is there any discussion? Mr. Saviano.”

“Any further discussion? Mr. Lang.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the Gentleman’s Amendment. First, let me thank the Sponsor for his hard work, along with Representative Saviano. It’s an 09300069.doc 308  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 interesting piece of legislation, an important one. We’re at a time where the film industry is a growth industry. It’s an industry that could bring many new jobs to Illinois, instead of shrinking our jobs in this area as we have. When one of the most ludicrous events of the last couple years the movie Chicago which received such great acclaim, wasn’t shot in Chicago, wasn’t shot in Illinois, it was not even shot in America. It was shot in Toronto, Canada. We can do better than that. We need to bring the best and brightest creative minds to Illinois and bring those jobs with them. So I support this Amendment. And the jobs and the… the new vitality it will bring to our state.”

“Further discussion? Mr. Holbrook.”

“Thank you. I… commend Representative Dunkin on this. Representative Saviano and I worked on this for a couple of years. I can tell you that they’re cleaning our clocks, nationally, internationally, on this… on this business. We have one of the best infrastructures set up in the Chicago area and it’s dying on the vine. This is a jobs Bill. We need to do it if we expect to hang on to those millions and millions of dollars which it generates. And I would urge an ‘aye’ vote on this Amendment and then on the Bill. Thank you.”

Speaker Novak: “Any further discussion? Seeing none, the Gentleman moves that Floor Amendment #1 be adopted to Senate Bill 785. All those in favor say ‘aye’; opposed say 09300069.doc 309  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. And the Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

“Mr. Dunkin on Floor Amendment #2.”

“Yes, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. Amendment #2 creates the effective start date, January 1, 2004.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the Gentleman moves to adopt Floor Amendment #2 to Senate Bill 785. All those in favor say ‘aye’; opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

“Mr. Dunkin.”

“Yes, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. Amendment #4 requires that the tax credit be a nonrefundable, or just a straight credit, just a straight tax credit, that way it won’t cost the state any money.”

“Is there any discussion? Mr. Black.”

“State your inquiry, Sir.”

“Mr. Clerk.”

“You’re welcome, Mr. Black. Further discussion? Mr. Rose. Mr. Black, your light is on.”

“Yes, he will.”

“Correct. Yes, Sir.”

“That’s correct.”

“To the Bill.”

“Further discussion? Seeing none, the Gentleman moves to… for the adoption of Floor Amendment #4. All those in favor say ‘aye’; opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. And the Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?”

Speaker Novak: “Third Reading. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Dunkin.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. It gives me great pleasure and an honor to hear Representatives of this chamber speak so fondly of this Bill that Representative Saviano brought to my attention. Representative Holbrook, Kurt Granberg, Bob Molaro, Turner, and others to support this Bill, the Black Caucus, a number of the motion picture film… black filmmakers, independent production filmmakers, Monique Davis. It’s a new day in the State of Illinois with good, positive legislation that’s gonna affect the economy, that’s gonna stimulate growth, that’s gonna make the difference in highlighting our great state. This is a Bill that all of us should support. Power to the people. I urge an ‘aye’ vote. Thank you.” 09300069.doc 314  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 785 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those… vote ‘no’. 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 115 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 785 is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, Senate Bill 1621. Read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Brosnahan on the Amendment.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I’d move to adopt Floor Amendment #2 on Senate Bill 1621. This Amendment simply removes language that… dealing with the Medicaid article of the Public Aid Code. It now, the language contained is a… an agreed Bill with the Department of Human Services. I’d be happy to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the Gentleman moves for the adoption of Floor Amendment #2. All those in favor say ‘aye’; all those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The Amendment’s adopted. Any further Amendments?”

Speaker Novak: “Third Reading. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Brosnahan.”

“Thank you, again, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Again, this Bill is agreed language with the Department of Human Services. This Bill will serve as the blueprint for the state’s implementation of the 1979 Supreme Court case of Olmstead. And I’d be happy to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1621 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 116 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1621 is hereby declared passed. Mr. Bost, for what reason do you rise, Sir? Mr. Aguilar, was your light on? Senate Bill 1937. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please. Take this out of the record, please. Representative Turner. Representative Turner, can you come to the podium, please.”

“On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 1937. What’s the status of that Bill, Mr. Clerk? What’s the status of Senate Bill 1937, Mr. Clerk?” 09300069.doc 316  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“The Gentleman from Kankakee, Representative Novak on Amendment #1.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. As you know, for some time, a little bit over a year, the Department of Transportation has been purchasing land from willing sellers in the area… in the vicinity of the third airports, specifically, what is commonly referred to as the inaugural footprint. The land that’s been purchased has been… some of the parcels that have been purchased from the willing sellers has been land banked and then some of the oth… some of the homes and farms that have been purchased are being rented out to individuals that wish to live in that area until such time as a third airport is developed. The concerns that have come from the local goverming… local governing bodies, specifically, the taxing districts such as school districts and townships are that they might not be able to… they’ll be losing any type of valuable tax dollars from the rental of these properties. This Amendment just simply sets up a mechanism where the state still is the agent for the collection of the rents or the renting of properties and then the Will County treasurer and the county of Will government has signed off on this, will administer the subtraction of the leasehold tax and then the Will County collector or the 09300069.doc 317  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 Treasurer’s Office will allocate those leasehold taxes to the appropriate taxing bodies. They won’t get a lot of money out of this arrangement. A leasehold tax is much, much less than actual property taxes. Leasehold taxes are based on fair market rent value. So, this simply sets up a mechanism. The Illinois Department of Transportation is neutral on the Bill. Will County government, pursuant to Mr. Mikan and the administration in the County Treasurer’s Office, are very willing to have this program put together. It has a ten-year… it has a sunset that ends in 2010, hopefully, by then we’ll have a decision on whether an airport is gonna be built or not in that facility or in that area in eastern Will County. And I’ll be more than happy to take any questions.”

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

“He indicates he will.”

“No. Mr. Parke, the state, IDOT, has been purchasing land…”

“…from willing sellers within the inaugural footprint of the airport. Some of the property has been actual homesteads with farmland, others have been just residences. The state is now in the process of renting those houses and farms out and so they can attach or the local supervisor 09300069.doc 318  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 assessment, Will County in this case, can attach a leasehold tax. This sets up the mechanism to ensure that the local taxing districts where those parcels of land are located that the state is renting will receive that leasehold tax and be allocated to the local taxing bodies.”

“The bulk of the money goes to the rents that goes to the treasury of the State of Illinois.”

“It’s not a collection fee. It’s the collection of a leasehold tax that’s already been in law for years.”

“Correct. It’s given to the affected taxing bodies: the school districts, township government for… as an example.”

“It certainly is.”

“You’re welcome.”

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

“He indicates he will.”

“Seeing no further questions, the question is, ‘Shall Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 1937 be adopted?’ All those in favor should say ‘aye’; all those opposed say ‘no’. In the opinion of the Chair, the ‘ayes’ have it. And the Amendment is adopted. Further Amendments, Mr. Clerk?”

“Third Reading. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill.”

“The Gentleman from Kankakee, Representative Novak.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly ask my colleagues for an ‘aye’ vote. Thank you.”

“The question is, ‘Shall Senate… The Gentleman from DeKalb, Representative Wirsing, for what reason do you rise?”

“He indicates he will.”

“Yeah.”

“Yes, that is the end result, Representative, is to get the leasehold taxes…”

“Right. That $40 is included in that rent check and it’s sitting in the State Treasury. All these local taxing bodies want is their little fair share of the pie that they’ve been losing for the last year.”

“Correct.”

“Correct.”

“Yes. It’s a leasehold tax arrangement, correct.”

“That $40 will go to ABC school district…”

“…whereas heretofore…”

“…it would go to the State Treasury and sit there and be used for any other purposes.”

“Yeah. The county…”

“…the county treasurer will disburse it to the affected taxing bodies.”

“You’re welcome.”

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

“Once again, I certainly ask my colleagues for an affirmative vote. Thank you.”

Speaker Turner: “The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1937 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 ‘aye’, 0 ‘noes’, 1 ‘present’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 1957. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Giles on Amendment 1.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #1, what it does is provide for the transfer of students out of the persistently dangerous school to another public school in the district that is not persistently dangerous or if the student is a victim of a violent crime on school grounds during school hours or during a school-sponsored event. This… Amendment #1 was similar to Senate Bill 814. This legislation is required of the No Child Left Behind which were… which are requires that the parent has the option of transferring their students out of an unsafe school. This policy will allow all school districts and public schools in Illinois, including special charter school district, laboratory schools operated by the governing board to a public university and alternative schools operated by a regional superintendent of schools. This piece of legislation passed out of the committee with no opposition. Also, it’ll establish a school board to establish and implement a policy allowing the transfer of students within the school district from a persistently dangerous school. I ask for a favorable adoption of this Amendment.”

“The Lady from Will, Representative Kosel.”

“He indicates he will.” 09300069.doc 323  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“That is correct. Some of the criteria… First of all, the criteria has to be met two consecutive years. The criterias are as follows: more than 3 percent of enrolled students have been expelled for violent-related conduct; two, one or more students have been expelled for bringing a firearm to school, as defined in 18 US code 921, and at least 3 percent of the enrolled students exercise the option to transfer because they were victims of a violent crime, as defined in Section 3 of the Right of Crimes and Victims and Witness Act.”

“To the Bill.”

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

“To the Bill.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Lee, Representative Mitchell. For what reason do you rise?” Mitchell, J.: “Well, as a former principal for Representative Black, sometimes I get a little nervous. Representative, this Bill does not give parents the right to just simply walk in the principal’s office and say, hey, I think the school is dangerous, therefore, I want my child transferred to ABC school?”

“Representative, that is correct. There are certain criterias that has to be met.” Mitchell, J.: “And the criteria themselves simply say that if, in fact, there is an incident in the school, such as Columbine School, then it does give parents the right to at least feel safe and move their child.”

“That is correct, Representative.” Mitchell, J.: “Now, the former Representative is correct in the fact that there is an unfunded mandate and we did talk about that with the state superintendent of schools and I 09300069.doc 326  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 did ask him if he would simply make this a checklist form, something very simple, very easy to do for most schools that don’t have this problem. Unfortunately, in today’s climate in today’s society, there are times when the most catastrophic things happen in our public schools that you could ever imagine. It’s unfortunate, but it does happen. This is not a protection against those things happening. It is saying to parents that we are trying to give you an option. No, it doesn’t take care of the 12 little hellions that are in that school and that’s still the responsibility of the local school district and they must set up policies to take care of that problem themselves. Now, I don’t agree with this legislation either, but I do agree with the fact that there are millions of dollars that are attached to the simple things that government asks us to do. Sometimes in order to reap the rewards we have to do some silly things, I will agree with that. This one I think we can make at least palatable. I don’t think it’s gonna be a tremendous work burden, especially if the state board carries through with their promise to make this a very simplified form that has to be filled out. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from DuPage, Representative Millner, for what reason do you rise? You don’t. The Gentleman from Will, Representative Meyer, for what reason do you rise?”

“He indicates he will.” 09300069.doc 327  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Representative, in this particular legislation, I did not see that particular remedy other than that parent would go through a process and would have the option of removing their child. Once again, I simply believe that the No Child Left Behind… the No Child Left Behind Act sort of supersedes those measures that the state may have upon this legislation.”

“Representative, and I would since like to respond by saying, you know, as the previous speaker, Representative Black, spoke which I think he was on target. We’re sort of in the rock and the hard place. We don’t have the remedies 09300069.doc 329  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 and the proper… there is a procedure, but the real procedure to address the scenario that you just brought out. Unfortunately, our friends in Washington, D.C., have given us sort of the rule as to the way we should go or else we will lose tremendous amount of funding and at this late hour, that’s what we are afraid of, as a state tryin’ to protect funding for our schools’ districts. And so, this is not… this is truly a, from my prospective and many Representatives here, a Band-Aid, we’re just simply meeting a criteria to protect funding. But we have not, I believe as well, have not, as Representative Black has stated, addressed the real problem.”

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

“Will the Sponsor yield?”

“He indicates he will.”

“Representative Giles, how did this legislation come about?”

“The legislation came about that we must abide by the Federal Law of the No Child Left Behind. This is one of the requirements that we have to meet or else we will… if we do not comply with the No Child Left Behind, we will lose approximately $7 million in federal funding.”

“Is this one of the initiative of the Governor?”

“I’m sorry, Representative.”

“Is this one of the initiative that the Governor would like us to do?” 09300069.doc 330  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

“Yes, from the Federal Government.”

“No, no. From the Governor? Is this something that the… Blagojevich would like to see and implemented?”

“I can’t… I’m not… I can’t answer if this is something that our current Governor would like to see, but I think he would like to follow the law and the law is to follow the federal guidelines that has been placed before us.”

“Well, the reason I raise the question, because as I was reading the legislation and I was looking at what I understand to be the reasons for Senate Bill 1957… Who is the original Sponsor? Link and the President, right?”

“Representative, I’m afraid… I’m sitting right… I’m standing right next to you and I cannot hear nor understand. Could you…”

“Okay. I was raisin’ the question, but I was trying to see who was the original creator of this legislation. Well, did you… of the Senate Bill.”

“I believe, what you’re lookin’ at first…”

“Who are the original author of the legislation?”

“Representative, this was Senate Bill 814 which was… I was the Chief Sponsor since we did not, because of technical reasons or did not meet the deadlines, we did not get this passed out of Elementary & Secondary Education since we have to do this or else we’re in jeopardy of losing federal funding, this is now in the form of a Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 1957.”

“Okay. I guess… I guess, I’ll go ahead and try to get to what made me stand up and wanna speak to this 09300069.doc 331  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 particular legislation. In lookin’ at this legislation where it says this legislation could potentially be used as a vehicle to remove dangerous student from a persistently dangerous school and then later on down in the body of language under Amendment 1, it describe the criteria in which is used to define schools and students who are problematic and it, for some reason, it parallel with a piece of legislation that came through earlier dealin’ with the alternative school. And that was somethin’ that I was an advocate for the Governor to put back in his budget. And see this… these same reason in this Bill bears me witness that what I was saying or what I would have liked to said about the alternative school is exactly the same here because I’m sure you know, Representative Giles, the alternative school is an alternate school. And it’s an alternate school, but you or Julie have not identified and someone been have been misidentified as having potential behavior problem coming from dysfunctional family. Are you following me so far?”

“I believe I am and I would just simply to respond by saying, I think I know where you’re going with what you’re asking. The only way that I can respond intelligently and that is that these are federal guidelines that we have to meet as a state or else we’re in jeopardy of losing funds. I think what we need to do is contact our federal officials, our Congressmen, our US Senator who sit down as we do and legislate these particular laws and the language in these laws and to address our concerns on that level to 09300069.doc 332  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 make sure that we can get some language that will truly address the problem and remedy the problem before it gets to the state that we have to abide by.”

“But see, Representative Giles, I know that you are concerned about this and your concern goes beyond what funds we’re losing. We’re losing our children. And that’s ironic that this legislation and the President’s legislation is about No Child Left Behind. But I’m sure, you and I comin’ from a similar background know a whole bunch of children that we see that have been left behind. To the Bill, Mr. Speaker. What I would like to say to this Bill, I think this is some good legislation, but Representative Giles and anybody in the room that’s interested that kinda relate to what I’m saying, it seems like this gives us an avenue to see if this No Child Left Behind legislation could be inclusive about alternative school. It look like all of that could fit under one umbrella because it’s identical. It’s servin’ the same identical clientele in terms of the students and it’s also tryin’ to find some remedies to assist those good parents who are tryin’ to manage student for whatever reason who have strong behavior problems and misdirected and not understand the value of an education. So, at any point in time that you and anybody else in this room that’s interested in this legislation and the conversation we’re havin’, I think it’s a worthwhile effort to join and I sees… I think it’s a worthwhile effort to join to try to see if the alternative school program cannot be just a 09300069.doc 333  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 so-called burden on the state the way it’s made to look with the budget, but if it can also apply for some of the dollars that are comin’ in through the No Child Left Behind. So, I support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

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

“I simply ask for the adoption of Amendment #1. This is something that right now unfortunately…”

“The question is…”

“…we have to do.”

“The question is, ‘Shall Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1957 pass?’ All those in favor should say ‘aye’; all those opposed say ‘no’. In the opinion of the Chair, the ‘ayes’ have it. And Amendment 1 is adopted. Further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Giles on Senate… on…”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. We have debated the substance of the Bill and I simply ask for the passage of this piece of legislation.”

Speaker Turner: “The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1957 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted 09300069.doc 334  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk… The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 109 voting ‘aye’, 6 voting ‘no’, 1 voting ‘present’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. The Gentleman from Lee, Representative Mitchell, for what reason do you rise?” Mitchell, J.: “Thank you, Mr. Mitchell… Mr. Speaker. I’m Mr. Mitchell. It’s gettin’ late already. Mr. Speaker, I’m assuming that we’re gonna be for… here for at least a couple more hours. I understand the Senate Republicans just went to caucus and I realize there’s some business that has to transfer from chamber to chamber. Therefore, the folks that are staying at Howard Johnson’s, I will be happy to make the phone call and reset the rooms. If you just let me know who all’s gonna stay, I’ll make the call. Again, as you realize this is kind of a weird setup we got there. I have to make the call for ya to get the right rate. I don’t know why. I didn’t do that, but that’s what happened. So, if you just let me know, I’ll call out there for everybody that wants to stay over. Jim Sacia’s saying ‘aye’. Anybody else let me know, Sid, Moffitt, Mikie. Good man. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

“So, Representative Mitchell is the concierge tonight. If you need to see him, stop in the back. On that note, let me remind the Members that it is now 9 o’clock or almost 9, 12 o’clock is three hours away and there ar e a number of Bills still on the Calendar. In 09300069.doc 335  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003 fairness to the Members who would like to have their Bill heard, I would hope that Members are considerate in their debate because time is of the essence at this point. So, I just want to remind the Members and ask that we be cognizant of the amount of time left in the day’s work. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 362. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk. I’m sorry. Mr. Clerk, what’s the status of Senate Bill 362?”

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

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Floor Amendment #2 has been being worked on for, I’d say, almost since mid-January. This has to do with the 529 Plan that’s under the IRS Code. And this is an agreement between the Treasurer’s Office and Bright Start Plan and the Illinois Bankers Association and the community. It caps the account at $10 thousand per year which is now unlimited. And it caps what can be charged, nothing over 4 percent. It allows recipro… reciprocity which means that if a state takes our plan, we’ll take the out-of-state plan. And by capping these fees at 4 percent it allows us to earn as much as we can. I urge… Save as much as we can for people who wanna save for college. And that’s what the Amendment does.” 09300069.doc 336  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 69th Legislative Day 5/31/2003

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

“He indicates he will.”

“Now, well, basically what it comes down… out to, what it means is that if there is reciprocity and we allow an out-of-state plan, they do not get the $10 thousand credit… up to 10 thousand at the beginning. The only thing will be is after 20 years, if they make $5 thousand in interest and they don’t pay more than 4 percent in their reciprocity, then that money that they earn will pass tax free, not only for IRS purposes, but also for State of Illinois purposes.”

“Yes. I mean, they’d have to follow all the rules that are there for the 529 Plans under the IRS Code.”

“Right.”

“Well, it… Yeah, it really does. I mean, that’s why the Bankers’ Association are for it as well as the treasurer. And they have said over the last two, three months and they’ve worked out the best plan that they can that satisfies the bankers. It’s good for the, you know, the families, for the State of Illinois. There’s no cost to it. It’s good for the treasurer’s Bright Start Plan and it’s a good compromise.”