Illinois House Floor Debate — April 27, 2007

"The House shall come to order. The Members shall be in their chairs. We ask the Members and our guests in the gallery to turn off cell phones, laptop computers, and pagers. And we ask the guests in the gallery to rise and join us for the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. We shall be led in prayer today by Father Jim Swarthout who is the Pastor of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in McHenry, Illinois. Father Swarthout is the guest of Representative Jack Franks."

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

Speaker Madigan: "Roll Call for Attendance. Mr. Franks. Representative Currie."

"Thank you, Speaker. Please let the record reflect that Representative Patterson is excused today."

"Mr. Bost."

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

"Representative Howard. Did you wish to call House Bill 754? Mr. Clerk, what is the status of House Bill 754?"

"Mr. Clerk… Mr. Clerk, I am advised that there are Amendments still assigned to the Rules Committee."

"We'll take this out of the record. Get those Bills… those Amendments out of the Rules Committee and then come back to you. Representative Chapa LaVia."

"Tha… Thank you, Speaker. If I could please have House Bill 1977 moved back to Second Reading and please table Amendment #1 to House Bill 1977. Thank you."

"Representative Chapa LaVia, could you state again your request? Representative…" 09500044.doc 3  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Yes… yes, Speaker, of course. Please move back House Bill 1977 to Second Reading and table Amendment #1 to House Bill 1977."

"All right. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of House Bill 1977?"

"Put the Bill on the Order of Second Reading. Are there any Amendments?"

"Mr. Clerk, Amendment #1. What is the status of that?"

"Representative Chapa LaVia."

Chapa LaVia: "Amendment #1, Speaker… and Members of the Assembly, adds in House… a new school district down in Representative… Smith's area. The line… let me get the right… proper…"

"Representative."

"Yes, Sir."

"Is your plan to move to table the Amendment?"

"Table Amendment #2. It was filed… it was written incorrectly."

"What is you desire on Amendment #1?"

"#1 is to proceed. To have it adopted." 09500044.doc 4  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Mr. Clerk, has Amendment #1 been adopted to the Bill?"

"All right."

"So, what we're doing, Speaker and Members, is moving the Bill back to Second because we've just put in the proper language on Amendment #3 and next week we'll be dealing with that. And maybe we'll need to file an extension?"

Speaker Madigan: "Right. And so, what is your desire on Amendment #2?"

"#2 is to have it tabled. A Motion to Table."

"All right. Representative Chapa LaVia moves to table Amendment #2. Those in favor say 'aye'; those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The Motion is adopted and the Amendment is tabled. Mr. Clerk, are there any further Amendments?"

"So, take the Bill out of the record. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of House Bill 825?"

"Read the Bill."

"Mr. Phelps." 09500044.doc 5  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. House Bill 825 is an initiative of the IBEW, and what happened in the recent ice storms in the winter of… in southern Illinois and Metro East and other parts of Illinois. Where… this Bill will require the ICC to conduct a work force study and analysis of each electric utility to determine the adequacy of the in-house staffing and contractor employees that are critical to maintaining reliable service in restoring service to Illinois customers. I also met with Representative Sullivan on this and I think this is an agreed Bill and I ask for your support."

"Mr. Sullivan."

"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 116 Members voting 'yes', 0 voting 'no'. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. House Bill 1847. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of the Bill?"

"Mr. Phelps."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. House Bill 1847… We also, if you remembered it yesterday, had an Amendment drawn up for cleanup language for the State Board of Education. I believe this is an agreed Bill as well. It's an issue of the IEA, IFT, SEIU. All it says is if you have a school district that is going to consolidate with another school district, seniority plays in who gets hired. And I ask for your support."

"The Gentleman moves for the passage of the Bill. The Chair recognizes Mr. Eddy."

"Sponsor yields."

"Right."

"Correct, Representative Eddy."

"Just like the seniority plays in teachers, be just the way with the support staff. Correct."

"Thank you for working with that, too, Representative Eddy."

"Mr. Rose."

"The Sponsor yields."

"They… and I appreciate that, Representative Rose. Let me take that back. I have talked to Deanna Sullivan about that. They were not really in a lot of negotiations on this. They just decided just to be against it, but just in principle."

"They are opposed, Representative Rose. Correct."

"Mr. Miller. Miller. Mr. Miller."

"Oh, there we are. Okay. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"The Sponsor yields." 09500044.doc 8  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Just one quick question, Representative. In terms of disciplinary action, how is that handled under this Bill?"

"Actually, Representative Miller, we have not discussed that… on that. This is… just says that if you have consolidated school district that wants to consolidate with another school district, instead of the superintendent and the school board being able to pick who and where this people are and who gets the jobs. It just goes on the seniority just like the teachers do."

"Okay. So, still the school district that’s being consolidated can still look under any… like in any other appointments… disciplinary actions, you know, things that have been a credit to their career, whatever it is?"

"Correct."

"Is that correct?"

"Correct."

"Okay. 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 Representative Kosel voted? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 112 people voting 'yes', 4 people voting 'no'. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, House Bill 1263, read the Bill."

"Mr. Hannig." 09500044.doc 9  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. This Bill would first of all create a checkoff for autoimmune disease on the Illinois State Income Tax. It would also provide language that would become standard that would say that every checkoff would need to establish at least a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in receipts in order to stay on. Typically, we do that but from time to time one of those slips by the Revenue Committee or perhaps it goes to another committee. So, this would just make this the standard. And it would also set a limit of fifteen (15) of these checkoffs. Right now we have thirteen (13). We are running out of room on the… on the form. And so it would set up a maximum of fifteen (15) and a mechanism whereby we can regulate that. So, that's what the Bill does. I'd be happy to answer any questions. And I'd ask for your 'yes' vote."

"The Gentleman moves for the passage of the Bill. There being no discussion, 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 116 people voting 'yes', 0 voting 'no'. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. House Bill 1347, Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Mr. Hannig." 09500044.doc 10  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. This Bill deals with the noncertified personnel that work at our school districts around the State of Illinois. It's an initiative of the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, AFSCME and SEIU, and recently the Teamsters actually signed onto the Bill as well. It's a Bill that actually… is a fairness Bill and a Bill of process. So it spells out a process in the law, a fair process, that would be required when a school district determines that they wish to privatize some of the noncertified personnel. It does not prevent them from doing so and in cases where they've already made that decision, well, that's just water under the bridge, and this Bill would not affect that. So, they could continue to do so. But it does spell out the parameters that I believe are only fair. It certainly creates some public input and requires some public input. And I think helps in many ways for the community to have a say in what is the final outcome for these positions in our school districts. So, as I said it's a major initiative amongst the IEA, the IFT, SEIU, AFSCME, and the Teamsters. But it… beyond that, I also believe it's a very good Bill for all of us. I'd be happy to answer any questions and I'd ask for your 'yes' vote."

"The Gentleman moves for the passage of the Bill. The Chair recognizes Mr. Eddy."

"The Sponsor yields." 09500044.doc 11  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Yes. Representative, I think what we would say is that when you look at the package of benefits, if the school district offers a pension plan and the privatization… the private company offers a pension plan that's generally comparable in dollars, and if they offer health care in the school district and the private firm offers health care. Again, those are… those are comparable things."

"Yes, Representative. I understand the unique nature that the school districts have with the pension systems and it's different from… and I think we recognize that it's different from what a private company would have."

"Yes, Representative. That can be."

"That's correct. It does not have to be exactly the same benefits."

"Yes. Representative, in fact, let me acknowledge that you've did a lot of good work in trying to make this a better Bill. I understand some of the objections that you still have, and I respect the differences that you and I have on the Bill. But you were very helpful and the management group that met with us was very helpful. And so, we did make some improvements and this is one that I 09500044.doc 13  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 think you can take credit for. And indeed, Representative, that's exactly what we meant."

"That's correct, Representative."

"That's correct."

"For that type of service. They're exempted."

"Mr. Rose."

"Mr. Clerk, what is the status of Amendment #1?"

"Sponsor yields."

"They're grandfathered in."

"That's correct."

"That service is still grandfathered in."

"That's correct."

"Mr. Black."

"Mr. Jerry Mitchell." Mitchell, J.: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I consider myself a friend of the IEA, the IFT, the CTU. My wife's a teacher. She's a member of the IEA; in fact, she's a local president. But quite frankly, in this situation, this Bill is going to cause a lot of problems at the local level. Everything that the former speaker said is absolutely true. But the 09500044.doc 19  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 problem that we really have is that attorneys for school boards are interpreting this Bill totally different from attorneys that are with the IEA, the IFT. If we don’t work these problems out here, before we pass this Bill on, then it's going to be in arbitration in almost every district in the State of Illinois. And from arbitration, into the courts. And that, my friends, is going to take more money away from education because school districts will fight for the rights that their attorneys say that they should have. And this entire matter will be settled in the courts, taking more money away from kids at a time when we’ve got school districts out there that are struggling to keep the doors open. We haven’t been able to reform the way we fund education. We haven’t been able to do anything different except add a few dollars to the foundation level, kick a little money into Chicago, add a little bit of ADA money to the suburbs and everybody's hurting. Why in the world would we do something like this that's going to cause money to come out of the classroom? It absolutely will. I'm a former superintendent. I've been in districts where we had the buses and where we had private contracts for the buses. I saw no difference in the ability. I'm… I just can't believe we're going to give up the local control or the local rights of school districts in order to make sure that they have a union-type contract every time. And I respect what the IEA does, and tries to do in the classroom with the kids and with teachers, but this goes way too far. And Mr. Speaker, if this gets the requisite number of votes, I'd request a verification." 09500044.doc 20  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"The question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' Those in favor signify by voting 'yes'; those opposed… the Chair recognizes Mr. Franks."

"Thank you. Be very brief if I may, your honor… Mr. Speaker, your honor. Your honor, I think I am in court. If I may ask the Sponsor some questions?"

"Sponsor yields."

"Thank you. Felt like I was in court there. I wanted to ask questions specifically for legislative intent, because we heard the prior speakers, and I want to make sure that we all understand what the intent is here. Could you please describe to us what the meaning of a 'comparable benefits package' is?"

"Representative, it simply means that if the school district offered a pension or health care package that there would be the same type of offering on the private side."

"It wouldn’t have to be the exact same offering?"

"Absolutely not. In fact, we understand that the school districts pay into a… a fund, IMRF and that's not available to private concerns. So, it clearly cannot be identical."

"So, a defined benefit plan similar to IMRF need not be offered."

"That's correct."

"Okay. And what if the employee elects not to participate in a retirement plan offered by the third-party sub… subcontractor?" 09500044.doc 21  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"The Bill only requires that there be an offer, Representative. The employee can make his own… his or her own choice."

"So, if there's a 401K plan and the employee chooses not to be part of that, that the employer would not be penalized."

"That's correct. You're correct."

"Thank you."

"Mr. Franks, have you finished? Okay. 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? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 76 people voting 'yes', 37 people voting 'no'. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. House Bill 3131, Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Mr. Cross."

"The Gentleman moves for the passage of the Bill. There being no discussion… the Chair recognizes Representative Monique Davis." Davis, M.: "Monique Davis is the only one that has questions? Okay."

Speaker Madigan: "Yes. But you may bring on a spirited discussion in debate and there'll be more questions." Davis, M.: "I should hope so, Mr. Speaker, on such an important issue. You know, Representative Cross, we all agree with you on any attempt to stop young people from driving and drinking or having… doing… having the consumption of alcohol. But in Amendment #2, you're asking that we suspend or revoke the driving privilege of anyone twenty- one (21) or under who's on court supervision for consumption of alcohol. Now, suppose that kid has to go to work. Or in Chicago, he might just have to go to school and it's not safe to take public transportation."

"Mr. Mautino."

"Thanks, Speaker. Leader Cross, I have just…"

"The Sponsor yields."

"Had a couple of questions. In the situation now, if I'm reading the Bill correctly, there's been no correlation on the ticket having to do with driving itself. So, twenty-year-old, home from the service, is at a keg party 09500044.doc 25  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 or something, gets a ticket, he loses his driving license, driver's privileges, although there is no vehicle that's involved or… Is that…"

"How long does the suspension last or how does this…?"

"Does then that show up on his permanent Secretary of State's file? I mean, we give those over to the insurance companies…"

"So, it's automatically… it's automatically expunged from the record?"

"Okay."

"Okay. Is there a reinstatement fee that goes along with it…"

"…in the course a court fee, an education fee…"

"Does the judge have discretion to not impose the driver's license portion? Can he say, 'okay, here's your… here's your fine, you know, you were out in the backyard with your dad, you had a beer, we're not going to take away your driver license.' Can the judge…?"

"Okay. I appreciate you… answering the questions on it. I'd… I just wonder that we won't have… I don’t know whether it be intended or unintended consequences down the road with these… in those situations where… and I always use the serviceman as an example. He's home from his tour 09500044.doc 27  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 of duty in Iraq and he's at his family picnic, he's at a ball game or something with some friends and… and we have made a tie to a driving privileges for a nondriving offense. So I just… I just have those concerns and I wanted to say… I appreciate your answers, though."

"Mr. Cross to close."

"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 115 people voting 'yes', 1 voting 'no'. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Clerk, do you have a report from the Rules Committee?"

"Mr. Clerk, what is the status of House Bill 754?" 09500044.doc 28  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Representative Howard on the Amendment."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Amendment #2 is a combination of the Connect Kentucky model that Representative Hamos has been very in the forefront of championing and the Universal Access to Broadband Services Act. It guts and replaces and this is the result. The Amendment would create the High Speed Internet Service and Information Technology Fund, which shall be subject to appropriations. It would be used by the Lieutenant Governor's office to provide grants to the nonprofit organization which would be named under this Act. The nonprofit organization would be able to apply for federal grants and to raise funds in relation to this Act. I will take questions."

Speaker Madigan: "The Lady moves for the adoption of the Amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Mulligan. Mulligan. Rise and shine there, Mulligan."

"Thank you. Thank you."

"Sponsor yields."

"That would be up to the organization. They would make the rules. Obviously, that organization has to be organized. That has to be developed first. So, that I am… I have no knowledge of how they would proceed with doing their business. But certainly, the kind of suggestions that you have or the thoughts that you have could be input into the process."

"No. That is not the case."

"As a not-for-profit entity, they would form and adopt rules as to how they would do their work."

"We're talking about initially five million dollars ($5,000,000)."

"There is… as we understand there's five million ($5,000,000) in the fund at present. Is there something that you know that we don’t know?" 09500044.doc 30  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"As I said, we were under the impression that there was five million (5,000,000), but the… the point is that whatever is left in the fund, we would want that to be transferred."

"I certainly… I'm certainly not privy to that. But if it was swept… it's gone. And we would want whatever is left to be transferred to this organization."

"I have been very fortunate in having received the verbal support from Congressman… or I'm sorry, Senator Durbin. And so, I do expect that we're going to get substantial assistance from that… from him."

"I do envision that. Yes."

"Representative Hamos."

"Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. I stand in strong support of this Bill. It was worked out not only with Representative Howard and Representative Munson, but also the private sector and we thank them for all of their input. And as Representative Howard said, also Senator Durbin. This is a very important initiative that really does follow an existing model that is working very successfully. Senator Durbin's legislation pending at the federal level is premised on… on states and State Legislators… State Legislatures doing this exact kind of thing. Setting up a not-for-profit with this kind of board governance structure as spelled out in the federal legislation. We were mindful of it; we tracked that and we incorporated that. And what's really important about this is that the private sector is a strong partner as we know in broadband deployment. And the very first sentence of the duties and powers says that this new not-for-profit, Connect Illinois, will seek and distribute private, state and federal funding including grants, loans, and general appropriations. If I am looking at the right thing here, wait. So, the whole goal here is to really bring this private sector into it and hopefully, with not only their expertise, their partnership, but also with their resources. And we envision as we go forward that this will not require state appropriations, but instead that we can do this combined effort. I… again, this is an important initiative. It brings together a couple year's work in 09500044.doc 32  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 thinking about how we're going to make the state truly a broadband… a full broadband access state. Thank you."

"Mr. Meyer."

"Sponsor yields."

"This legislation does not speak to that."

"This legislation does not speak to the issue of how fast the speed is."

"As you are aware, this Bill came from a very cooperative effort between the state and the businesses. And these businesses have indicated that they would like us not to specify within the legislation the speed. But you can rest assured that because they are so involved in this process that they will make certain that whatever we do is going to meet their needs, as well."

"I welcome it."

"The question is, 'Shall the Amendment be adopted?' Those in favor say 'yes'; those opposed say 'no'. The Amendment is adopted. Are there any further Amendments?"

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

"Representative Howard." 09500044.doc 34  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have… I think, probably adequately debated this and I ask that my colleagues please give me 'green' votes. Thank you."

"The Lady has moved 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 116 people voting 'yes', 0 voting 'no'. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. House Bill 1798. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Mr. Brosnahan."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. The first thing I'd like to do is thank my friend and colleague, John Fritchey, for his leadership on this issue. John was gracious enough to let me carry this Bill and I just want to thank John. I really owe you one, John. So, House Bill 1798, it amends the Wrongful Death Act to allow for the consideration of grief, sorrow, mental anguish in wrongful death cases. Now, I've heard from some Members on this Bill. I've heard from some of the opponents on this legislation. They've indicated that this is a way that we're trying to circumvent the cap on medical malpractice cases relating to non economic damages and that is simply not true. Pain, suffering, mental anguish, these are non economic damages. In no way are we trying to circumvent the legislation that we passed in 2005 that put 09500044.doc 35  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 a cap on non economic damages in the medical malpractice cases. What this Bill is about is fairness to victims. Fairness to a… a young couple who lost a young child because someone's actions. That's what we're trying to do here. We're not trying to get around the cap at all. What this Bill is about… is about saying that the worth of a human life can't just be determined by lost wages or future wages, something more than that is involved. We are talking about… there are non economic damages: grief, mental anguish, suffering. This isn't such a huge step that the opponents want you to believe that it is. Because the Illinois Supreme Court has already indicated in the 1980s that under the Wrongful Death Act you can recover for non-economic damages. You can already recover for loss of consortium. You can already recover in a wrongful death case for loss to society. We are simply saying that the jury should also be able to award damages based on grief, suffering, and mental anguish. And what I wanted to do before we go to questions… I have a Roll Call in my hand; we passed a Bill May 31, 2001, the Humane Animal Care Act. And the Roll Call was 117 'yes', 0 'noes'. This is what the Bill that we passed in this Body in 2001 stated. It provides that any owner of an animal and that animal was either killed or was subjected to aggravated cruelty can bring a civil action. Damages may include but are not limited to the monetary value of the animal, any other expenses incurred by the owner in rectifying the effects of the cruelty, pain, and suffering of the animal and emotional distress suffered by the owner. So, if we are 09500044.doc 36  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 going to allow a pet owner to recover damages for emotional distress when his pet is killed, how can we as a Body in good conscience then say to parents who lost a young child that we're not going to let a jury decide the damages for the emotional… pain, suffering, the mental anguish that you went through when you lost that child. So, again, I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I would certainly ask for an 'aye' vote."

"Mr. Meyer."

"The answer is yes. Mr. Meyer."

"Sponsor yields."

"It's going to allow the jury to now consider grief, suffering, and mental anguish. And that is a non economic damage that presently under the law a jury cannot hear. So, we are adding that to the wrongful death statute."

"Well, in a medical malpractice case they are already capped. So this does not affect the cap on medical malpractice awards, we're not trying to circumvent the cap. The cap still applies. These are simply non economic damages." 09500044.doc 37  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"It does not change existing law. There's not a cap right now, when we're talking about wrongful death cases. The cap applies only to medical malpractice cases. It doesn’t change anything other than that."

"Well, I can tell you that 23 other states in the country provide for the same damage awards. The juries are allowed in twenty (20) other states to consider grief, suffering, mental anguish."

"Not these particular damages, but the Illinois Supreme Court has allowed non economic damages to be collected in wrongful death suits starting in the 1980's, I believe. They allow loss of consortium, which is a non economic damage. They also allow loss to society, also in the 1980s. So the State of Illinois has allowed non economic damages in the past for wrongful death suits."

"Well, because we're adding grief, suffering, mental anguish. But they… those are new non economic damages. But the Illinois Supreme Court has already allowed juries 09500044.doc 38  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 to hear other non economic factors that'd be loss of consortium and loss to society."

"No."

"Absolutely not."

"I really don’t know, Representative Meyer. I couldn’t give you an answer on that. Maybe someone from the insurance industry can tell you, but I don’t have an answer."

"And Representative Meyer, the only thing I could tell you, I mean, I don’t think this is going to result in a large increases. I can't say that for sure. Who knows what the future holds. But I think this is more about fairness to the victims that lose a loved one at the actions of another. I think it is only right and fair to allow a jury to hear these non economic damages for pain, grief, and mental anguish. I think it's more about fairness for the victims. And I don’t know what's going to happen with the insurance. I can't give you an answer on that." 09500044.doc 39  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Well, I mean, it depends on each individual case. What we are doing, we are adding a new area where a plaintiff can recover. So, they couldn’t recover for these non economic damages before, now they will be able to recover them if this legislation is passed and signed into law."

"As I stated before, this does not affect the 2005 legislation for caps for non economic damage of medical malpractice cases."

"Absolutely not. That's not before us today and quite honestly, I didn't agree with the 2005 legislation on those caps, so I certainly would have no interest in putting caps on other areas in this Bill."

"I did not carry the Bill in the committee, but I know in our… in our analysis the Insurance Defense Counsel were opposed to it, but I believe they became neutral when we passed Floor Amendment #1. The Illinois State Medical Society is opposed to this. I am not aware whether they testified against this legislation or not in committee, but 09500044.doc 40  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 I know they are opposed to it. I believe the Hospital Association is opposed to it, but I'm not aware of who testified in committee."

"Because they believe this is the right thing to do. I think the present law, quite honestly, is illogical. That we're going to let a jury decide non economic damages for loss of consortium, loss to society, but we're not going to allow them to consider other non economic factors like grief and suffering. So, I think it is the right thing to do. And again as I stated, we passed legislation that allows a pet owner to recover for emotional distress when their pet is killed. I think this really remedies a wrong that's going on right now."

"No."

"Mr. Black."

"Sponsor yields."

"I'm not aware."

"I'd really have no idea. I guess it would…"

"Honestly, I would not have the slightest idea."

"In a wrongful death suit under the current law, a jury is not allowed to hear non economic damages for grief, sorrow, and mental suffering. But they are allowed to hear non economic damages for loss of consortium or loss to society." 09500044.doc 42  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Yes."

"I believe so. I don’t have a list in front of me but…"

"Sorrow and mental suffering."

"I believe you'd have to be a spouse or…"

"Surviving spouse or next of kin."

"I believe that's already in the Wrongful Death Act."

"That's correct." 09500044.doc 43  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"The only thing I can suggest is maybe Illinois Trial Lawyers Association would be able to sit down with you and they'd recommend a lawyer you can talk to. I don’t know. I'd say consult a lawyer and they can let you know if you have an action."

"My understanding is it would still count as non- economic damages. In a medical malpractice case those are… the cap is still in effect."

"When we're talking about non economic damages…"

"…in a medical malpractice case, the caps are still in effect. This legislation does not change that at all."

"That's correct."

"Then under the present law there is no cap on that."

"Yes."

"That's correct."

"That's correct." 09500044.doc 45  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Grief, sorrow, and mental anguish… mental suffering."

"Well, I guess there's really two (2) parts. I mean, you have your defense so that, I guess, the liability portion of the cause of action in the first place. So you could defend whether you are responsible or not. And then you get into a separate area where we're talking about damages and that's really depends on the evidence that’s presented by the plaintiff and any evidence that the defense chooses to present as well."

"It is a possibility."

"Mr. Fritchey."

"Thank you, Speaker. To the Bill. Ladies and Gentlemen, for all the discussion about insurance premiums, 09500044.doc 46  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 insurance coverage, et cetera, I think something may have been lost on what the Sponsor has said before. The insurance industry is neutral on this Bill. You can go ask them. They are all around. They have no position on the Bill. They were opposed to the Bill. And the provisions that they were opposed to were reviewed. Their opposition was taken into consideration; those provisions were removed via an Amendment by the Sponsor. The insurance industry has no position. This is about the fact that it hurts to lose a loved one. We compensate people for loss. That’s what we do. And we allow a jury to go and do that. As the Sponsor of the Bill said, my God, we allow compensation for grief and loss of a pet. And you're going to say that an individual cannot be compensated 'cause they lose a child, a sibling, a parent? My gosh. This isn’t about trial lawyers and doctors. This isn’t about insurance policies and insurance premiums. This is about doing what's right and doing what is fair and allowing a jury to set these amounts. Again, I've had it with the scare tactics down here. It’s about a compassionate policy. It's about doing what half the states in this country do and that is saying let the jury put themselves in shoes that, God forbid, any of us find ourselves in, that someone that we love, somebody that we care about was wrongly taken away from us. This isn’t about having your uncle have a heart attack and die and you feel bad about it and want to sue. This is about losing a loved one because of wrongdoing. And it's only if it was found to be a wrongdoing that you even get to the damages. If a defendant is not found to be liable 09500044.doc 47  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 for the underlying death, there's no damages, Ladies and Gentlemen. The presumption here that exists in every case is that there will only be a judgment if there was found to be wrongdoing. All this Bill is about at the end of the day then is, when you have an individual or an entity that was found guilty of wrongly causing the death of somebody that those surviving family members are entitled to compensation for the insurmountable grief and loss that they suffered. Truth be told, I don’t know that any of us would be willing to put a dollar amount on losing a loved family member. But what this simply says is let the jury decide if compensation is due to that mother or that father, to that son or that daughter, to that sibling for the wrongful death of a family person. Don’t get caught up in the politics. Don’t get caught up in the hype. Look in yourself and ask what you would do if it was you and what you would think is right and what you would think is fair. Please vote 'aye'."

"Representative Mulligan."

"Sponsor yields."

"Okay. I'm sorry."

"I don’t want to interrupt you, but you raise a good point. So, for purposes of legislative intent, this legislation by adding grief, sorrow, and mental anguish when it comes to non… I believe they are non economic damages… and as it applies to a medical malpractice case, 09500044.doc 49  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 this does not affect the cap. The cap is still in place. I'm not trying to circumvent the cap. So, I'm not trying to change the law in 2005 tort reform Act."

"That's legislative intent. I'm trying to clarify. I've said it when I… when I spoke first about the Bill. This is not a way around the cap."

"Quite honestly, I'm not sure how it's going… it depends on how many cases are brought. It depends on the evidence presented at a trial. I can't…"

"The only thing I can tell you, Representative, we didn’t present this Bill to this Body in an attempt to produce a whole lot of frivolous lawsuits. We're trying to do this to be fair. The Illinois Supreme Court has already allowed non economic damages in wrongful death suits. 09500044.doc 50  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 We're adding another section: grief, sorrow, mental anguish because it’s fair. To me it's illogical that we don’t let a jury consider those… those damages."

"I believe… no. After they saw the Amendment that we did which removed the part about the contributory negligence, they looked at this Bill and I… I can't speak for them, but they're neutral on it. I must believe they're neutral because they don’t think it is going to have a negative impact on their industry. That's why… I mean…"

"They're not going to be under assault because of this Bill. I don’t believe that they'll be under assault because of this Bill."

"Is… you know, if that was a question, I'm sorry, I missed it." 09500044.doc 51  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"I can only tell you that they're neutral on the Bill. They didn’t bring those other concerns to me. The reasons why… I am just telling you what I think, why they're… they don’t think it is going to have a negative impact on their industry."

"Mr. Winters. Winters."

"Sponsor yields."

"No, I don’t. The City of Chicago did not contact me."

"On my analysis, they show that they're opponents. But again I was not in committee. I didn’t present the Bill in the committee. And I can just tell you that I have not been contacted by the city before running this Bill."

"Mr. Lang."

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

"Sponsor yields."

"Representative, I support your Bill. I just thought we'd talk about it for a little bit, if that is all right with you. So, my understanding is that as crafted now, this Bill is substantially different from the original Bill. Is that correct?" 09500044.doc 55  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"That's correct. And with that Amendment we did remove the opposition of the insurance industry. So they are now neutral on the Bill."

"Now, with the original Bill, you and I and everyone else on the floor got all kinds of e-mail and correspondence and faxes from all kind of hysterical doctors and hospitals and insurance companies and that was all about… really in its core, it was really all about the portion of your Bill that you've taken out, relative to contributory negligence. Isn't that correct?"

"Well, to be fair, I think they had concerns about both parts. So I don’t want to characterize this as this as that is something they don’t have a concern with or a problem. But I do think by Floor Amendment #1, by removing the opposition of the insurance industry, I certainly think we've made this maybe a less controversial Bill. I think it probably made it a better Bill, easier to understand, because the Bill that we have today is pretty straightforward. That's the way I believe."

"Now, it appears to me that some of the opposition we're hearing today is really based on your original Bill, even though they are not saying that, because they've heard from certain interest groups that might be opposed to the Bill, or certain interest groups that may have been opposed to the Bill that are no longer opposed to the Bill. Are you hearing what I'm hearing? Do you hear that some of this opposition is coming from folks that really haven’t paid much attention to the fact that the Bill's different?" 09500044.doc 56  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"I think you certainly have a point. And I also think maybe some of the opposition is based on maybe a misunderstanding of the Bill. I mean, some people thought that when, you know, we call this Bill that somehow we're trying to circumvent the caps that were put in place in 2005 in med-mal cases for non economic damages. And this Bill does not do that at all. And as I've stated in response to another Representative's questions for legislative intent, I'm not trying to do that."

"So, even with these new jury instructions, et cetera, it doesn’t change the cap in the Bill that we had passed and the Governor signed into law. Is that correct?"

"That's correct."

"So, also my understanding is that there are something like twenty-three (23) other states that have this in their law today."

"That's correct. Twenty-three (23) other states in the country provide… lets the juries award damages in wrongful death cases for non economic damages that would include pain, grief, and mental suffering."

"Has anybody looked at the impact of that law in those other states to determine whether it's raised awards or whether it's hurt doctors or whether insurance companies have… have suffered as a result of those state laws?"

"I'm not aware of any studies that were done. No one has presented to me with any studies, as far as that."

"But I think we could probably presume that if there was evidence that it was painful for those insurance companies, 09500044.doc 57  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 they'd probably would not have removed their opposition here in Illinois. Wouldn’t you think?"

"I would certainly tend to agree with you."

"Now, there may be those who are opposed to this who think that your plan is to… your plan was to whittle this Bill down to a smaller Bill and send it to the Senate and change it. Is that any part of your plan, Sir?"

"No, not at all. My plan, my hope for this legislation, is that it goes to the Senate, they vote on the Bill the way it's presently drafted, it gets passed and sent to the Governor's desk in the form that it is in today."

"And so you're not aware of anyone in the Senate who's planning to take this from you and create some mischief that would create a big hub-bub on the floor of the House. Is that correct?"

"That's correct."

"So you don’t expect to see this back on concurrence?"

"I certainly hope not."

"Do you have a Senate Sponsor lined up?"

"You know what, I am not sure if someone pre-signed for it or not, but I'm not aware of one."

"Thank you for your answers, Sir."

"Thank you."

"Representative Osmond."

"Sponsor yields."

"No. I don’t believe so."

"No."

"No."

"No."

"Yes."

"I think they would probably be all in grief, sorrow, mental anguish would be one jury instruction. I know right now there's a jury instruction that says they cannot consider grief, sorrow, or mental anguish. So, I am assuming there'd probably be one that would allow them to consider it."

"Grief, sorrow, and mental anguish." 09500044.doc 59  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Well, I guess there is a reason in the Bill why there's no definitions. Because it is hard to define what a person's grief, what a person's suffering, what a person's mental anguish is when they suffer a loss. So, there isn’t a definition. I can only tell you that probably as they do in the twenty-three (23) other states, the plaintiff, they would present evidence to a jury that… the attorney presenting the case would have to, you know, I guess, make the case: what is grief, what is suffering, what is mental anguish, what is sorrow. So, that is why there is not a definition. I guess there is not an easy answer to give you on that. That would be up to each individual case. It would be up to the juries to determine what those damages would be, if any."

"Representative, I know in this Bill we have not changed that, as far as who is eligible for the recovery. So, that’s presently in the wrongful death statute as it is. We're not changing that at all."

"Yes. We're allowing grief, sorrow, mental anguish to be considered as non economic damages."

"No, we're not."

"I guess and I haven’t tried civil cases, but I think if this is your question you would have to… the jury, the finder of fact, would have to delineate between what is economic damages and what are non economic damages."

"So there would be a breakdown."

"I guess that depends. It's like any other damage award. So, I guess that would depend… on each… each case." 09500044.doc 61  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

Speaker Madigan: "Hamos… All right. We have no one else seeking recognition, so we are prepared to go to Roll Call. There has been a request for a verification. And so the Chair would ask everyone to take their seat. Mr. Hoffman, if you could take your seat. Again, we're prepared to go to Roll Call. There is a request for verification. Representative Chapa LaVia, if you could take your seat. 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. Now, if everyone can remain in their chairs and Mr. Scully, if you could take your seat. Mr. Granberg, take your seat. Mr. Meyer, did you want us to read the names of those voting 'yes'?"

"It might help if I were to tell that there are only two (2) Democrats voting 'no'. They're in the back row. Mr. Holbrook and Mr. Beiser. All the other Democrats except Collins are voting 'yes'."

"You want to name them? Do you want to name them?"

"Burke. Is Mr. Burke in the chamber? Remove Mr. Burke from the Roll Call." 09500044.doc 62  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Mr. Fritchey is down in the well. Right here."

"You're welcome. Again on this question, 63 'ayes', 52 'noes'. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is here by declared passed. House Bill 928. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of that Bill?"

"Mr. Hoffman."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This is an initiative of the firefighters organization. The Bill provides that any condition, or impairment, or health of a firefighter or emergency medical technician, or paramedic that results directly or indirectly from a bloodborne pathogen, lung, or respiratory disease or condition, heart or vascular disease or condition, hypertension, tuberculosis, or cancer that results in disability in the workplace, that with regard to a workers' compensation action, there would be a rebuttable presumption in favor of it happening and being a result of the work activity. The reason that we need a rebuttable presumption as these are the types of medical conditions that happen over a long period of time. And sometimes it's difficult to point to the exact cause. This would be a 09500044.doc 63  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 rebuttable presumption that then the employee… employer could come in and attempt to rebut. I ask for an 'aye' vote."

The Gentleman moves for the passage of the Bill. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mathias."

"Sponsor yields."

"Yes."

"Yes. And that would have been… that was dealt with in House Amendment #3, which was adopted. And it specifically clarifies that the rebuttal presumption only applies for the specific provisions within the subsection and not any other provisions. So the presumption only applies to the described Bill analysis and not any other provisions in the subsection. In other words, only for the purpose of the workers' compensation determination."

"I recall in committee addressing some of these issues with the opponents and I remember them indicating that it certainly would make them more comfortable with the Bill. I've not heard from any of them that they've changed their position. But I've also not heard from them that their position remains opposed. I'm not… I just haven’t heard. But in the committee I think if I remember correctly and I believe you were there, Representative, I think that I remember correctly when we talked about the issue of rebuttable presumption and making sure that this only applies in the Workers' Compensation Act, that that would have made them much more comfortable. I don’t know if that turned them to neutral. I don’t recall."

"Thank you."

Speaker Hannig: "Representative Hannig's in the Chair. Representative Mulligan."

"He indicates he'll yield."

"Yes. It was never my intention to not allow the employer to come in and provide evidence that maybe this didn’t occur as a result of the activities at work. And the drafting of the original Bill had a conclusive presumption if they… if they were a firefighter and they suffered from some of these illnesses that would have been conclusively presumed. However, conclusive, conclusive that it was worked related. That was not my intention. So what we did, and because of the very nature of these illnesses, we said that if you suffer from one of these and you’re a firefighter and you come in and you have a workers' compensation action that it would be presumed that it happened as a result of your activities at work and that the employer could then come in, as you can in any type of adversarial proceeding, and could prove that that was not the case. In your example, that there may be some other reason that the individual firefighter is suffering from this type of an illness. So, that's how it would work."

"Yeah. This is only dealing with the workers' compensation issue for compensation of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. This Bill does not deal with the pension disability issue."

"Well, we are not… we're not adding another category. We're simply discussing the burden of proof for a firefighter who may have a bloodborne, or lung, or respiratory disease that most times came about as a result of the fact that they're fighting fires over a number of years. Many times in buildings that may have had asbestos or other types of buildings that have asbestos or other types of material that causes these respiratory disease. When they're… when the firefighter breaths them in while they are fighting this fire. So, we're not adding any additional cause of action. We are simply talking about the burden of proof that if the firefighter who has served for over… I believe it's five (5) years… has any of these diseases, then with regard to the workers' compensation action that you would presume that they were a result of work-related activity and the employer, which in this case would be the fire district of the municipality, could come in and prove that that was not the case. But we're not adding any additional cause of action."

"I'm not… I'm not trying to say that it isn’t a significant issue. It's significant in that the firefighter, who has spent a life fighting fires for us, is dealing with lung and respiratory diseases that you can't just point your finger to this one occurrence. It really is a lifetime of ingesting and breathing in these types of materials. So, it's a unique situation that this is attempting to address, so that they can be compensated if, indeed, it happened on the job. If it didn’t, you can bring in other evidence to the contrary."

"Well, I think the current law, what would happen is a firefighter who has these diseases has to come in and the 09500044.doc 68  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 Workers' Compensation Act only covers you for work-related injuries. So you have to prove that the injury was a result of activities on the job. Many times that's very difficult with these types of diseases to prove. Yet we know over, and over, and over again that it's more likely than not that they were a result of the activities of the firefighter while on the job, because there's a higher incidence of these types of illnesses as a result of that type of employment. So, what this does is if you have it you could bring your action, it doesn’t mean you're going to get compensated, it doesn’t mean you're going to win, it doesn’t mean that you have proven beyond any doubt or conclusively that this happened on the job, it only means that the employer can then come in and bring contrary evidence as to whether or not it happened on the job."

"Right. So, if the person had not worked for the… as a firefighter for five (5) years, then the current law 09500044.doc 69  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 would still apply, where they could bring a action. They would have the current burden of proof."

"This does not have any effect… this does not have any effect on who would be the ultimate defendant. I believe that the time that you got… I don’t do this type of law but my understanding is at the time the injury or the problem takes place, where you're working at that time would be the defendant."

"I'm nearly 100 percent sure that I'm right. But I don’t want to say that I am 100 percent sure that I'm right."

"Under your scenario, I believe, generally the community when the problem manifests itself would be the defendant. I'm not sure as to whether or not the… all of them would be the named employers and then the workers' compensation judge would determine who would have to pay the compensation."

"But I apologize for not… having that."

"No…"

"Well, I think this attempts to address the nature of these diseases that may manifest themselves after a lifetime or after… even five (5) or six (6) years of working as a firefighter. That's what this attempts to address. Because the nature of these diseases, a lot of times you can't… it's not like when you fall down and you break your arm. You know when you fell down and you broke your arm. If you're ingesting or breathing in these toxins when you're fighting fires, many times the disease doesn’t manifest itself for many years. All this is saying, is if you are doing that for an employer you can bring an action. And then the employer would come in and say, look, he has these other health problems, it didn’t happen on the job. We're not trying to compensate someone who didn’t… doesn’t deserve to be compensated."

"Representative Black."

"Yes. State your inquiry."

"Certainly. Mr. Clerk, would you provide for us the Amendments… the status of the Amendments."

"He indicates he'll yield."

"Yes."

"It's my understanding that we adopted 1 and 3."

"And what 3 is… 2 was misdrafted, is my understanding."

"I recall in committee a discussion of an issue of pension disability liability. That may be the case. I don’t know for sure. But we put in Amendment #3 because there was a concern by the fire departments and I believe the police chiefs… or the fire chiefs association, in particular, that this somehow would change… a determination in the workers' compensation case would then be able to be carried over and be used and in the pension disability case." 09500044.doc 73  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"So, what we did is we was very specific in Amendment #3 and said that this Bill is simply for workers' compensation determinations, not for pension disability determination."

"I'm sorry. I was correct in the case…"

"Go ahead, I'm sorry."

"I was listening to staff."

"I believe that the law is if… if an injury is work- related, happened on the job, you have an action under the Workers' Compensation Act. If you become disabled, you also could apply for disability benefits. That's… this doesn’t change that at all."

"As a matter of fact, we're very careful so that one didn’t bleed over into the other, that there would be separate determinations for the workers' compensation injury under this law, and any disability you may receive under your pension disability." 09500044.doc 74  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Yeah, and I believe that there then would be a set- off statutorily."

"An offset, probably…"

"Where the workers' compensation carrier would probably pay into the pension disability…"

"…or have to pay them some back."

"And this doesn’t change that…"

"…as it currently exists."

"Well, you're doing a good job of stalling." 09500044.doc 75  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Yes. So, if you have one of these conditions and you have worked as a firefighter for more than five (5) years, you could bring your action… the problem is, as staff has indicated to me, the… when you file a workers' compensation case you have to put down the date of occurrence, the date of the accident. As I indicated earlier, if you fall and break your arm, you know what day you did it. These type of illnesses many times manifest themselves as a result of being around a particular substance over a long period of time. So therefore…"

"…it's hard to say…"

"…it occurred on this date."

"Right. And so, what would occur under this law is you would bring… you could bring your action, which you probably would have brought anyway, but you could bring your action and then the information would come in regarding your health problems, regarding your current condition, and regarding the fact that those… that being overweight, being a smoker, other issues, have really contributed or caused your illness, as opposed to the fact that you went into ten (10) burning buildings that… without any type of mask…"

"…and breathed asbestos."

"I believe we haven’t changed the statute of limitations issue." 09500044.doc 77  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"So, that probably, under current law, would be barred under the statute of limitations."

"Right. The initial Bill… the initial Bill, I thought was… I wasn’t exactly for. But the way it was drafted… it was drafted incorrectly, where there wouldn’t… you wouldn’t have that ability. It would have been conclusive."

"And we…"

"…went back and adopted Amendment #1…"

"…in order to address that issue."

"I helped lead the negotiations for the first agreed Workers Compensation Bill that you voted for. And Representative Brady, I believe, was your Caucus's Representative in the negotiations with business and labor. In that legislation which really was monumental, although some would say didn’t go far enough, it was monumental because it was the first agreed Bill we passed in nearly thirty (30) years. It provided for items like a fee schedule for medical, business was for that. It provided for upgrading some of the funeral benefits. It provided for the first time in Illinois a fraud unit, where if you believe fraud is occurring you can call in an 800 number and they'll look at it. During that negotiations the AFL- CIO and the firefighter were at that… at the table and it 09500044.doc 79  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 was very specific that we were going through the agreed Bill process; however, we were not… we were not prohibiting ourselves from dealing with this issue…"

"…separate and apart."

"And we couldn’t… I'll be quite honest with you. We couldn't get an agreement."

"And so, we said… everybody said with regard to this issue, we'll deal with it…"

"…on a different basis."

"Thank you, Representative."

Speaker Hannig: "We have one more individual seeking recognition. Representative Rose, you're recognized and then we're going to close. So, Representative Rose." 09500044.doc 80  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"It… by its very nature, the presumption is rebuttable. Therefore, the issue of smoking would be brought in and you would be rebutting that presumption."

"You would be in the workers' comp… not trial. It would be a workers' compensation hearing. But you would…"

"Yeah. And so you're there. The problem that we have by its very nature these illnesses, if you’re a nonsmoker and you’re a firefighter and you have lung cancer, you have to, under the Workers' Compensation Act, be specific with a date of occurrence. Okay? And these illnesses occur as a result of breathing in the toxins over a period of time."

"Because as I indicated… as I indicated, the problem with these types of illnesses is they manifest themselves after years of exposure. It's not like when you fall down and you break your arm or you fall off a ladder and you hurt your back. You know when it occurred. And under our workers' compensation laws currently, currently, you can't as a result of the nature of these illnesses necessarily say they occurred on this date. What we know, because medical evidence tells us, that firefighters are susceptible to these types of illnesses because of the risk that they're put in. And this is… so what we've tried to do is not say it's conclusive. So don’t think it's conclusive that simply because you have lung cancer, you're going to get compensation of the Workers' Compensation Act. What we're saying is, we'll get you to the hearing. Then the other side can bring in evidence that you smoked for thirty (30) years and therefore, it wasn’t a result of the actions taken at work."

"Representative Hoffman to close."

"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This Bill is not really that complicated and it only applies to a certain type of occupation, and only applies to certain types of diseases that manifest themselves after years of people doing their jobs for us. Working as a firefighter, working as an emergency medical technician, working as paramedics, these people are doing our job… our jobs for us, putting themselves in harm's way. We should make sure that the law's fair with regard to them being compensated, if they tragically get one of these diseases as a result of working in those positions. I ask for an 'aye' vote."

"The question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Pritchard and Black, do you wish to be recorded? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 70 voting 'yes', and 46 voting 'no'. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative 09500044.doc 83  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 Acevedo, would you like us to read House Bill 1557? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"We're going to use the rules of debate and I'm going to run the clock. And so, Representative Acevedo, you're recognized for 5 minutes."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. House Bill 1557… currently drug dealers, drug traffickers, and gunrunners sentenced to the Illinois Department of Corrections are statutorily entitled to receive same, day-for-day good time credit as defendants sentenced to imprisonment for simple possession of a controlled substance and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Under the present sentencing statute, defendants sentenced for trafficking firearms or multiple kilograms of narcotics are authorized to serve only 50 percent of their actual sentence, just as those defendants sentenced for possession of one (1) firearm or possession of less than one (1) gram of cocaine or heroin. This legislation would limit the amount of good time credit drug runners… gunrunners, Class X felony drug violations, and Class X felony money laundering receive to 25 percent rather than 50 percent of their sentence. I'd be happy to answer any questions."

Speaker Hannig: "Is there any discussion? Representative Molaro."

"Yes. Unfortunately, I have to rise in opposition. But if people are going to vote 'yes', I hope they stick to 09500044.doc 84  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 it. But I just have to point out, Representative… Representative Acevedo, I've talked to him about this. The problem we have is that the way we have the law now, in the State of Illinois, we have truth in sentencing. So, if you commit a violent crime, you have to serve 85 percent of your sentence. If you don’t commit a violent crime, then you… whatever your sentence is you go to the penitentiary and they have all their things for good time and credit, which the Department of Corrections uses so if you behave yourself in prison and we pass laws, Representative Turner, everybody passes laws here, and get your GED, all kinds of good things that you could do for prisoners, who are convicted of nonviolent crimes. So, to make that clear, nonviolent crimes. If it's a violent crime, you're doing 85 percent and that makes sense. So now one of the Bills he has here, one of them listed, is a Class X felony for possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver. So, let me tell you what the law is. You got these kids out there that are nineteen (19) to twenty (20) years old, they're not deliverers, they're not main dealers, they're not all these drug dealers, and all these horrible guys. They'll buy an ounce of cocaine and they'll sell thirteen (13) grams so they can get a free three (3) grams because they're bust outs. They're not deliverers. They're not manufacturers. They're not these big drug dealers. They're… half of them are living on the street or some flop house that have this dependency. So now when they're arrested and they're convicted, it's a Class X felony and they must go to jail for six (6) years. 09500044.doc 85  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 That's what we decided. That makes sense to me. You're going to go to jail for six (6) years because you did have it and you did intend to sell it. It's a six-year sentence. But we don’t say 85 percent or 75 percent because it's nonviolent and when you go to the Department of Corrections and you got six (6) years, if you turn yourself around, if you're good in jail, if you do the right thing, right, and you do that, then you might get out in three (3) years. And all those programs that you have, you do have it where you get out in three (3) years. So you're sentenced to six (6), you get out in three (3) years. That's the law in the State of Illinois. Everybody knows it. If you are convicted of a crime of violence, you're doing 85 percent. If it's nonviolent, even though it's drugs, you can get out in three (3) years because there is good time credit. If you take away the good time, there is no incentive to be good in jail. There's no incentive to turn your life around. There's no reason to take away the good time. So, now if the Representative would like to say manufacturers, or all these people he talked about, but I'm just asking him and I am asking you to look at the Bill and it does say possession with a controlled substance with intent to deliver. And I submit to you, that if you ever go to 26th Street, these are not these big-time gangbangers that are making millions of dollars, or the guys that sit in the Caribbean and all these… the Madien Cartel. These are kids that are out there selling this dope because they can't afford it. So if the Representative says hey, these are the kids that I 09500044.doc 86  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 want to make do 75 percent, well then vote 'yes' on the Bill. But if you're in there and saying good conduct and good credit is okay for nonviolent offenders, then you have to vote 'no' on the Bill. Thank you."

"Representative Lindner."

"He indicates he'll yield."

"No. I believe with the House Amendment #2 it's thirty-three million ($33,000,000) over ten (10) years Representative."

"Over ten (10) years."

"That was the estimate that the Department of Corrections gave after they filed a fiscal note."

"Yes, and we came down with thirty-three million ($33,000,000) over ten (10) years."

"Representative, I'm glad you asked me that question because the last speaker, he was speaking under original intent of the Bill. With Amendment #2, this does not have no impact whatsoever on anybody who's selling illegal drugs 09500044.doc 87  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 on the street corner. We're talking about a person who deals with multi kilograms or kilos of heroin or cocaine. And we're talking about people who transported through… out of state."

"I'm sorry. Can you… can you repeat that?"

"I did not personally, Representative. I don’t know if the State's Attorneys Office did or anyone at… or DOC, but I did not personally."

"We've had two (2) in favor and one (1) in opposition. Representative Black, you're recognized for 5 minutes. Representative Black, you have 5 minutes. We're running the clock."

"Indicates he'll yield."

"Absolutely, Representative."

"Exactly. Yes."

"Representative Acevedo to close."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of my colleagues spoke previously about this Bill. This legislation goes after the small-time drug dealers who are selling the dope to provide some for himself. This is not what we're trying to do. This is not the intent of the legislation. I believe Representative Black put it correctly, that we're going after the big-time drug dealers. The individual who wants to transport between state lines kilos amongst kilos of heroin and cocaine. We're going after the big-time drug dealers who are pouring these illegal drugs into our neighborhoods, into the streets not only in the City of Chicago but throughout the State of Illinois. And these are the people we're trying to go after. We are not trying to get the individuals who are the small-time dope dealers. This does not have no impact on them whatsoever. I ask for an 'aye' vote."

"The question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have 09500044.doc 91  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 107 voting 'yes' and 5 voting 'no'. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative Bellock, you have House Bill 2808. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Bellock."

"Is there any discussion? Then the question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. 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' and 1 voting 'no'. And this Bill, having 09500044.doc 92  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative Chapa LaVia, you have House Bill 1977. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill. Out of the record, Mr. Clerk, at the request of the Sponsor. Representative Chapa LaVia."

"Speaker, earlier today I wanted that moved back to Second."

"Okay. So, that's why it's on the list."

"Yes. Thank you."

"All right. So, Representative Dunn, you have House Bill 3649. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Dunn."

"This is on Short Debate. Does anyone stand in response? Then the question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative… Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 87 voting 'yes' and 29 voting 'no'. And this Bill, having received a 09500044.doc 93  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative Crespo, you have House Bill 876. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Crespo."

"Thank you, Speaker, Members of the House. House Bill 876 will amend the Highway Control Act of 1971 to allow for relocation of billboards in a specific location in Hoffman Estates in compliance with the Federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965. The purpose is basically to allow the relocation of three (3) existing billboards and add a fourth one in Hoffman Estates. This will allow the park district in Hoffman Estates to lease two (2) billboards to the Chicago Wolves and in turn will generate over one million dollars ($1,000,000) to the park district. And the proceeds will then… the proceeds are intended for programs for seniors and low-income residents in the area. I brought this Bill up roughly three (3) or four (4) weeks ago. There were some concerns that were brought up by Representative Black in terms of potential loss of revenue or potentially having to reimburse the Federal Government if we were noncompliant. It was a very good issue. At that moment I voluntarily decided to take it back. I had staff look into the issue and we did talk to IDOT. And I can state that IDOT's position after analysis of Federal Laws, national standards and contracts between the Federal Government and the state is that this Bill and the erection of the billboard in this area will not force the state to 09500044.doc 94  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 repay the Federal Government. I should also add that there is a bonus agreement signed in 1965, which I have a copy of and it does state that Illinois is entitled to receive an additional one half of one percent of highway construction cost as long as it regulates advertising in a manner consistent with one or more… consistent with or more restrictive than the Federal Laws and rules. We also found out that this stretch in Hoffman Estates did not benefit from that half of one percent. So, the law wouldn’t apply. But in the event… in the event that there were some issues, the agreement signed in 1965 does state that they do give us thirty (30) days to correct the problem. And the park district is more than willing to bring down the fourth (4) billboard if that were the case. Be happy to answer any questions."

"On that question, the Gentleman from Cook, Representative Fritchey."

"Thank you, Speaker. To the Bill. I was one of the individuals that had raised issues the first time he had called this Bill up. And even though he's a newcomer, he kept his word to me and worked diligently with staff to try to address those issues. While the Amendment that we sought may not be feasible and is not on this Bill, I believe he has a workable solution to a legitimate issue up in his area. I appreciate the work that he has put into this and the work that staff put in on this, as well. Is it a perfect Bill? It's not a perfect Bill but is it one that deserves our passage, yes it is. Thank you." 09500044.doc 95  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"The Gentleman from Vermilion, Representative Black."

"Yes. State your inquiry."

Speaker Hannig: "Mr. Clerk, what is the status of the Amendments on this Bill?"

"Representative Dugan."

"Yes. Speaker, will the Sponsor yield?"

"He indicates he'll yield."

"I just have a question just so I can understand it. Representative, the land that you want to put this on, the billboard, who decides on the state highway whether or not that land is considered business or nonbusiness? Who makes that determination?"

"Well, IDOT would have to look at the zoning for that particular area. The zoning was established by the Village of Hoffman Estates back in 1959 when it was incorporated. I should also add, Representative, there are currently three (3) billboards right there, right now. It is clearly an industrial business zone area. It's not even near a residential area. We're just basically asking to relocate three (3) to accommodate the fourth one. But it is zoned 09500044.doc 98  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 by the Village of Hoffman Estates and IDOT does recognize that as well."

"So, again, my question is, they can be put up on business… land that's considered business, but not on land that is considered nonbusiness, which would make sense to me."

"Right."

"But in this particular case, whoever has classified it as business, we're assuming that it's misclassified. That it… because of the zoning in the area it really should be considered business instead of nonbusiness. Is that… am I understanding what we're trying to…"

"Correct."

"Okay. So, I just wanted to make sure it is allowed on a business strip of land. For some reason, maybe years ago, this was not considered a business area. It was considered a nonbusiness, but now the village itself with their zoning process has made it now a business area. So it should be allowed."

"That's correct."

"Thank you."

"Thank you."

"Two (2) in response and two (2) in support, Representative Molaro. You're next on the list. Which side would you like to be on?"

"Well, I'm in support."

"Okay, proceed."

"And I'll tell you why. We have in this chamber all the time. We've had it where the… these old historic 09500044.doc 99  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 buildings that maybe a school will be built next to it or within a couple hundred feet and what we wind up doing is, we come here and we exempt that particular location from the liquor law of that particular city because we don’t want to change the entire liquor law. We don’t want to do that. But because of a historic city in somebody's district we vote to allow that particular historic restaurant to keep or get their liquor license. We do that all the time. That's all we're doing here. I want to make this perfectly clear. If you read the Bill, the Bill is absolutely 1,000 percent specific to this little ten-foot area that they could put the imprint of this billboard. Now, the village is 100 percent for it; the park district, it's going to build an ice rink for the park district in this area. If any other State Rep says we need this special little piece of legislation to bring three… a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) a year to our village, we would of course help them. As far as that little red herring about the preempting Federal Law, in case it does, there's a provision right in the Bill, if anybody cares to read it, that says this Bill does not become law if it costs any federal dollars. It couldn’t be clearer. The Representative's comes here and here's what he says, 'Help my little town in this area that's not considered business. I don’t want to change the law of Illinois. I don’t want to change anybody or affect any other city, any other village. I want to do nothing except get me this ten (10) feet so I can build this billboard and allow my park district, the kids in my community, to gain three hundred 09500044.doc 100  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 thousand dollars ($300,000) a year from the most economic development for a fifteen-year period.' That's all it says, nothing else. We do this all the time for liquor licenses. If it cost us one (1) penny, we're not going to wind up in court because the Bill says if it cost us one penny of federal dollars, the Bill does not become law and will be automatically repealed. It will be repealed. So, if it cost anything, it's repealed. If a court says it's going to cost us money, it's repealed. But none of us are constitutional lawyers. Let's try to do this for this village. If there's any problems, it'll not cost us a penny. Thank you."

"We've had three (3) in support and two (2) in response. And the rules provide for one (1) more in response or in opposition. Representative Mulligan would you like to take that last position?"

"Okay. You're recognized for 5 minutes."

"Indicates he'll yield."

"Representative, I'm sorry. I know you asked about 3.7 million and you… I think your question is, will this be in violation of the agreement of '65?"

"No, that's not true. And when the Representative… Representative Black brought it up three (3) weeks ago, I was even concerned myself 'cause our analysis doesn’t go that deep to find out. Since then we have talked to IDOT. We did get a copy of the agreement… the bonus agreement of '65. They clearly state that the state is entitled to half of one percent in reimbursement from the Federal Government if that particular section during the construction did get that. This particular section never got the half percent, so it wouldn’t apply. However, just in case… just in case if it were, and IDOT has told us it's not the case here, according to the agreement, the Federal Government will give us thirty (30) days to cure the issue… cure the problem. And the Hoffman Estates Park District has gone on record saying that they will take it down, if that were ever to happen. So, there is no risk of losing or having to return any, any money to the Federal Government."

"We've now had three (3) in favor and three (3) in opposition and the rules provide Representative Crespo, you're recognized to close."

"Thank you very much, Speaker. And I want to thank again all the colleagues who talked to the issue. When I brought this up last time… this is a… by the way, I firmly believe that this is the right thing to do. Let's keep in mind what this does is allows the Hoffman Estates Park District to fulfill its agreement with the Chicago Wolves and in return then we get over a million dollars ($1,000,000), which they're going to take back to their programs for seniors and low-income folks. I know there is some concerns about other businesses and the lobbying efforts out there. This is limited in scope only to local and State Government. They're the only ones who could benefit. The Beautification Act does what it's… it does say; it's supposed to beautify the area. Folks, I already have three (3) billboards there. I'm not cutting down any trees. It's not near any homes. So, yes, we are relocating three (3) to put the fourth one and in return folks in Hoffman Estates would benefit from this. Yes, also for the record, the Village of Hoffman Estates has endorsed this Bill. The Chamber of Commerce in Hoffman Estates has endorsed the Bill and the Illinois Association of Park Districts has endorsed the Bill, as well. When I first got here, I'll tell you, I've seen a lot of Members who come here and talk about needs for their district. And I'm a proud Member to know that we do respect that. And I'm asking you to respect this. It is important for my 09500044.doc 103  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 district; it is important for my park district. And I please ask for your 'aye' vote. Thank you."

"The question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Gordon, Schmitz, Yarbrough, do you wish to be recorded? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 60 voting 'yes' and 53 voting 'no'. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative Coulson, you have House Bill 3764. Representative Coulson? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Coulson."

"This is on Short Debate. Does anyone stand in response? Then the question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Rita, do you wish to be recorded? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 116 voting 'yes', and 0 voting 'no'. 09500044.doc 104  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative Washington, for what reason do you rise?"

"Personal privilege. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

"State your point."

"Mr. Speaker, I was asking the Body would they join me today in wishing a happy birthday to our parliamentarian, Gwen Drake. Today is her birthday."

Speaker Hannig: "Representative Golar, you have House Bill 1398. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Golar."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After examining the Bill, I would like this Bill to be returned to Second Reading, please."

"Okay. So, we'll return this to the Order of Second Reading at the request of the Sponsor. And Representative Durkin, you have House Bill 448. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Durkin."

"This is on the Order of Short Debate and in response the Gentleman from McHenry, Representative Franks."

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

"Indicates he'll yield."

"Representative, I don’t know much about this issue. And I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. Is it required by prosecutors in Illinois to use a lab that is based in the State of Illinois?"

"So, this would just apply to labs in the State of Illinois?"

"Let me stop you for a second." 09500044.doc 106  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Why do we allow out-of-state labs to do the analysis? And I'm not talking about jobs. Here's what I'm talking about. How can we compel someone from out of state to come to Illinois to testify on the chain of title and the others things they're doing?"

"I don’t think this Bill goes far enough."

"Because, we just had a horrible thing happen in McHenry County. A mother was killed by a driver who was allegedly high on cocaine. They sent the specimen to an 09500044.doc 107  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 out-of-state lab. It went to Missouri. They had a problem with the chain. They could not compel anyone to come and testify. The prosecutor had to drop the charges and it was a travesty of justice. The victims were victimized again. And I think that we may need to not allow that these type of specimens be sent out of state, so we can always have the ability of subpoena power because without that subpoena power, we can't bring anybody to court."

"But they've come voluntarily."

"In this case, they wouldn’t come."

"We'll have to figure out some way pos… if you're willing and you say it's a work in progress to have this 09500044.doc 108  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 amended in the Senate. Possibly, that if they do accept work they'd also be consenting to the jurisdiction of the State of Illinois. And would also open themselves up to acceptance of the service of process and would have to be… and would have to make themselves available to be subpoenaed."

"Great. I appreciate it. As we do have the carrot here. I understand what you're trying to do, but we need the stick."

"So, thank you."

"Representative Sacia."

"He indicates he'll yield."

"Representative Durkin to close."

"The question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Saviano and McAuliffe, do you wish to be recorded? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 116 voting 'yes' and 0 voting 'no'. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional 09500044.doc 110  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative Granberg has House Bill 1496. Out of the record. Representative Hamos, on House Bill 1331. Out of the record. Representative Harris, on House Bill 147. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Harris."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. This is the clinical breast exam legislation which expands the requirement for coverage for clinical breast exams for younger women in Illinois for whom mammograms are not currently indicated. This year over seven thousand (7,000) Illinois women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and about one thousand seven hundred and fifty (1,750) women in the state will die of this disease. Medical research shows that for younger women and women with denser breasts the clinical breast exam is the best way to guarantee early protection. It's a very moderately priced procedure around a hundred dollars ($100) and by detecting cancer early, before it spreads, you're saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs plus the anguish for women and their families. This Bill was brought to me by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Breast Cancer Foundation, the Asian Human Services and Lesbian Community Cancer Project of Chicago. We've worked substantially with the Department of Healthcare and Family Services to answer some of their concerns and while they're listed still in… at least my analysis, is in opposition, I 09500044.doc 111  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 am told they are now neutral to it. I'd be happy to answer any questions. And I would ask for your 'aye' vote."

"This is on Short Debate. Does anyone stand in response? Then the question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Mitchell, do you wish to be recorded? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 115 voting 'yes' and 0 voting 'no'. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative Hernandez, you have House Bill 1641. Out of the record. Representative Holbrook on House Bill 1724. Representative Holbrook, do you wish us to read 1724? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Holbrook."

"Thank you, Speaker. House Bill 1724 applies a recap rate at 7.75 percent on the property that the leaseholders now have at our Air Force base down in Scott Air Force Base. This is identical to what we've did at the Great Lakes Naval Facility up north. These are the only two reservations we have in our state that have housing under a lease agreement. I will tell you that we are still accepting data from the government. You are working with our two (2) other levels of government, both the county and the Federal Government, with Senator Obama and Senator Durbin's office and our Congressman… Congressman Costello. This rate may get changed over in the Senate. I got to 09500044.doc 112  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 tell you that because we're still trying to get information. It's very slow getting it out of the Pentagon. But we… initial review of it appears to be pretty accurate to what they did up at the Great Lakes Station. And I'd ask for an 'aye' vote. Take any questions."

"This is on Short Debate. And in response the Gentleman from Lake, Representative Sullivan."

"Indicates he'll yield."

"This is the exact same recap rate, 7.75."

"There is a situation there where they own property off the base. And we will assess that the same as we do all other property within our county."

"We're looking at both of those as they calculate them through my local assessor's office."

"We take into other accounts, other issues." 09500044.doc 113  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"Right. We have other issues that our county took into account as they developed the property off base. Now, the stuff on base… yes, we took that… the gross receipts in. They're actually two (2) animals here. The on-base and off-base facility."

"Yes."

"In paragraph B."

"They have for private nonexempt property that the U.S. Air Force leases through its housing allowance program. I believe that covers that."

"The leasing that property."

"It's not on the reservation. That is, it's not on the air base itself. It adjoins it and they bought it and 09500044.doc 114  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 they have… they're buying that property and using that as leases back for the facilities they're building."

"Representative Holbrook to close."

"Yeah. This work may be a work in progress in the Senate, it may not be, depending on what the information 09500044.doc 115  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 the Federal Government provides us on these lease holdings. These are private, fifty-year no-bid contracts that they received to maintain this housing. We've taken into account, we feel in the capitalization rate, their cost out there now already. And I think, I think, this, to the best of my knowledge, represents what we did at Great Lakes. It may not be exact and Representative Sullivan may be correct, but to the best of my knowledge, it is. I'd be more than willing to change it in the Senate, if that's not the case. But for the purpose of the deadline, we need to move this on over to the Senate. I'd ask for an 'aye' vote."

"The question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Crespo, Flowers, Ford, and Mitchell. Representative Ford and Mitchell. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 45 voting 'yes' and 69 voting 'no'. And the Bill fails. Representative Howard, you have House Bill 1021. Do you wish us to read that? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Howard."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 1021 amends the Illinois Procurement Code to provide that a state agency may purchase technology goods and services of any amount without any method of source selection currently required 09500044.doc 116  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 by the code from a vendor in a current contract with a unit of local government, school district, or a community college. I'm just… this is a piggybacking Bill. It pertains to vendors in a current contract with a municipality of five hundred thousand (500,000) or more population, therefore limiting the pool of vendors that may avoid the competitive bidding process in these situations. I will answer questions."

"This is on the Order of Short Debate. Does anyone stand in response? Representative Miller, in response?"

"Yes, just to the Bill, briefly. I want to commend Representative Howard, Representative Colvin, and others on this piece of legislation. This is really to try to help those disadvantaged businesses to try to help streamline some of the procurement problems they've had historically of being left out of contracts. I urge a favorable vote."

"Representative Fritchey, did you wish to speak on this? Representative Fritchey."

"Representative Howard, so I understand this. If you have an existing IT contract with the state, you would then be exempted out from the bidding process going forward?"

"If you have an existing contract with the city, then you would be able to then automatically become eligible and qualified to do business with the state."

"Solely eligible? But you would still be required to go through the bidding process, et cetera."

"No, you would not. That is the point. That all too often the playing field is just not even and this is an 09500044.doc 117  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 opportunity to attempt to make certain that everybody gets a fair shake as we're going through the process."

"But isn’t the bidding process part… I'm… I don’t think I have a problem. I'm just trying to make sure I understand this. Are you saying that you automatically become contract… that you're eligible for the contract?"

"This legislation would allow the vendors who currently have a contract with the state to bypass the bidding process."

"If they currently have a contract with the state…"

"Yes."

"…they could bypass the bidding process?"

"The bidding process. That's…"

"That doesn’t level the playing field, that puts them on a playing field that nobody else is on."

"Well, the problem is that, historically, minorities have not been able to get a fair share of business."

"I wholeheartedly agree with you that that is the case. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's wrong. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that something needs to be done about that. But saying that we're going to allow somebody that has a… an existing contract to no longer have to bid to get other contracts… I sincerely… I don’t get what one has to do with the other. Let me shift gears for a second. Two (2) days ago this Body unanimously passed House Bill 1 that has to do with pay to play. And it's saying that if you hold a contract from the state in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), that you are prohibited from making contributions to the office that let 09500044.doc 118  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 that contract. Would these vendors be subject to that pay- to-play legislation?"

"They would not when it is not in the best interests of the state."

"No. But what that legislation says is that they could not make campaign contributions to the officeholder that put the contracts out to bid. If these contracts were no longer out to bid, by virtue of having a contract with the city, you no longer have to go through the bidding process with the state, which means you would have no prohibition to making a hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) contribution to whatever agency it was or to whatever executive officer it was that was letting that contract. Is that correct?"

"There is… there are certain restrictions and obviously one of them is what you just described."

"Representative, with all due respect and with a certain amount reluctance, I would submit to say that you're wrong. There is nothing in this legislation that would subject them to the pay-to-play restrictions which we have all acknowledged we want to see."

"The intended contract must have been let pursuant to competitive selection procedures, reasonably comparable to procedures used by the State of Illinois. The purchase must be for substantially similar supplies or services, and under the same or better terms and conditions."

"I understand that. But…"

"I'm not sure that I'm understanding what you're asking me." 09500044.doc 119  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"What… that statement is correct. That statement though, and I'm not saying you did it intentionally, that statement has absolutely nothing to do with what I said."

"Repeat your question."

"I wish I could. I've got twenty-five (25) seconds. I have often stood by this woman happily and proudly and with the Members of the Black Caucus in their support of this legislation. To exempt… to level the playing field is one thing. This puts people that have existing contracts in a playing field all to themselves, it takes them out of having to competitively bid. It sets up a door, albeit unintendedly…"

Speaker Hannig: "Could you bring your remarks to a close, Representative?"

"The reality is that people that are going to abuse this system are going to do so whether they are white, black, brown, male, or female. This takes away any type of checks and balances on that system. It lets them out of the competitive bidding process. It takes them out of the pay-to-play restrictions that we're hopefully going to have in law in this state. You are nothing but well-intentioned in doing this. I get it. I think that there's a lot of drafting changes that need to be made to this Bill. And I very reluctantly, on a personal level, stand here in objection to this. But what you are trying to do, it's a very broad attempt to deal with a very legitimate issue and I would hope that it could be narrowed down somewhat. Thank you for hearing me out, though." 09500044.doc 120  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"The Gentleman from Vermilion, Representative Black. Representative Black, your turn."

"State your inquiry."

Speaker Hannig: "Mr. Clerk, what are the status of the Amendments on the Bill?"

"Representative, I don’t think the Clerk can say that."

"Why don't you ask the Sponsor."

"She indicates she'll yield."

"That is correct."

"That's correct."

"The initial contract was subject to source selection."

"Representative Black, there are certainly a number of various scenarios that can be brought up regarding problems that exist. This one is speaking to one problem that persons who are in the communities that I represent have faced. And we're attempting to deal with and address that problem with this legislation. The fact of the matter is that there has been in many instances unwillingness to allow minority contractors to have a fair share. We are attempting to get a fair share for that group of people." 09500044.doc 122  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"The current law, Representative Black, is twenty-seven thousand (27,000). And we're attempting to include more persons by talking about the average of three (3)… of a three-year period of time."

"Representative, could you bring your remarks to a close, please?"

"Representative Howard to close."

"Yes. Thank you very much. I just want to make certain that it's understood that the whole purpose of this is to streamline the process. Obviously, the agency still makes a decision regarding who gets the bid. And I certainly hope that my colleagues will all vote 'yes'. Thank you." 09500044.doc 124  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"The question is, 'Shall this Bill pass? All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Cultra, Jefferies, May, Mitchell, Ryg, do you wish to be recorded? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 42 voting 'yes' and 71 voting 'no'. And the Bill fails. Representative Jakobsson, you have House Bill 1453. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Jakobsson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill amends the Insurance Code, the Health Care Purchasing Group Act, the Health Maintenance Organization, Limited Health Services Organization, Voluntary Health Services Plans, by adding a definition of summary health information. And it requires that a group health plan disclose the summary health information to plan sponsors with fifty (50) or more employees, if the sponsor requests the information for the purpose of obtaining premium bids from health plans for providing health insurance coverage under the plan or modifying, or amending, or terminating a plan."

"This is on Short Debate. Does anyone stand in response? Then the question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. 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 113 voting 'yes' and 2 voting 09500044.doc 125  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 'no'. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative Jefferies, you have House Bill 2734. Okay. Out of the record. Representative Jefferson, on House Bill 1141. Do you want us to read this Bill, Representative? On Third. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Jefferson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. This Bill basically says that when there's a situation where there's a school that is hard to staff, teachers will be able to go to the school and be paid a stipend over a five- year period of four thousand ($4,000) dollars a year to teach in these hard to staff schools. It's a good Bill and I would answer any questions."

"This is on Short Debate. Does anyone stand in response? Then the question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. 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' and 0 voting 'no'. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative Mathias, you have House Bill 1638… 1638. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Mathias." 09500044.doc 126  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007

"This is on the Order of Short Debate. Does anyone stand in response? Then the question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All in favor vote 'aye'; opposed 'nay'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative… Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 114 voting 'yes' and 0 voting 'no'. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative Miller, you have House Bill 1723. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Representative Miller."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. House Bill 1723 amends the State Employee Article of the Pension Code. The Bill provides for automotive mechanics employed by the Illinois State Toll Authority… 09500044.doc 127  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 Highway Authority who has been assigned to retrieve and to repair state vehicles, or state highways, or toll ways, and certain sign hangers. This Bill had passed in the last General Assembly. It's just a correction. I ask for a favorable vote."

"Well, this is on Short Debate, but it looks like we'll move it to Standard Debate. And Representative Black, you're recognized for 5 minutes."

"Representative Molaro."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is pretty strange. I absolutely agree with everything that the previous speaker said. However, I have just an opposite, total opposite, conclusion as to those agreements. If we start talking about the fact that what we want to tell the rest of the state, let's make it clear. Obviously, I and many people in this room voted for many, many budgets that underfunded the pension system. Remember how we used to gild benefits years ago? We would actually not pay for the benefit and we would make it go to the underfunding of the pension system. Now, what this benefit does, we passed Senate Bill 27, and it was the smartest Bill we ever passed. And 09500044.doc 130  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 here's what Senate Bill 27 said, under no circumstances ever are we going to give a benefit increase ever again in the State of Illinois unless it's funded at the time we give the benefit. No more unfunded liability, no more debt. The previous speaker talks about the position we're in right now and the position we're in right now is because we gave benefit increases without paying for them. We didn’t do the funding. That was our fault, that was my fault, I voted for many Bills. I have to thank the wisdom of the Speaker. And I'm pointing him out not because I got a Bill later that I want called. It's not for that reason. I'm pointing it out that he was smart enough to know that we have to pay for the benefit increase at the time we give the increase. That's exactly what this Bill does. That's exactly what we should have been doing for the last thirty (30) years. What this Gentleman's Bill does is exactly… if we would have done this for the past thirty (30) years, we'd be 90 percent funded. What his Bill does is say we're going to give a benefit and the employee is going to pay for it. Every single dollar is going to be paid for by the employee when he gets into this. So, therefore, as we do this, yes, they will get a benefit, but they're paying for it. These people should have been in when we put the other Teamsters in years ago. It was an oversight. We're making do with that oversight but because of the Senate Bill 27 and the wisdom of our Speaker… and I am waiting for a Bill to be called, Mr. Speaker… and because of that we are doing this right. It's the right way to do this. And this is the way that shows that now we have our House in order. 09500044.doc 131  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 The exact opposite of what the previous speaker says. This shows that we're doing the right thing. What we should have been doing for thirty (30) years."

"Mr. Miller to close. Speaker Madigan in the Chair, and Mr. Miller to close."

"I request 'aye' votes."

"Those in favor of the passage of the Bill vote 'yes'; those opposed vote 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 76 people voting 'yes', 39 voting 'no'. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Ladies and Gentlemen, if we can have your attention. Sometime this afternoon I shall send a letter to the Clerk, which will extend the deadline for all House Bills until the close of business next Thursday. Again, sometime this afternoon I shall send a letter to the Clerk extending the deadline for all House Bills to next Thursday. And with that in mind, our plan would be to now prepare for adjournment. Mr. Clerk, do you have anything else? The Adjournment Resolution. Clerk…"

Speaker Madigan: "The Clerk has read the Adjournment Resolution. Representative Currie moves for the adoption of the Adjournment Resolution. Those in favor say 'aye'; those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The Resolution is adopted. Mr. Clerk, do you have any Agreed Resolutions?"

"The Clerk has read the Agreed Resolutions. Representative Currie moves for the adoption of the Agreed Resolutions. Those in favor say 'aye'; those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The Agreed Resolution are adopted. And for all Democrats… for all the Democrats, let me remind you that there will be a Democratic Caucus on Tuesday morning at 10:00 a.m. in Room 114. And the purpose is to receive a presentation from the Governor's Office concerning the Governor's plan for universal health care. So, 10:00 a.m. Some of you Republicans may wish to linger 09500044.doc 133  STATE OF ILLINOIS 95th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 44th Legislative Day 4/27/2007 outside the room and maybe the Governor will come along and you can greet him. Get to know him a little better. With that in mind, Representative Currie moves that the House stand adjourned until next Tuesday at 12:00 noon, providing perfunctory time for the Clerk. Those in favor say 'aye'; those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The House does stand adjourned until 12:00 noon on Tuesday, providing perfunctory time for the Clerk."