Illinois House Floor Debate — February 17, 2010

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let the record reflect that Representative Black, Hatcher, and Osmond are excused on the Republican side of the aisle today."

"Black."

"It's going to be, I think, a little bit more quiet. Well, maybe not."

"Yes, Sir. Mr. Speaker, point of personal privilege."

"Ladies and Gentlemen, joining us in the gallery today is a wonderful lady that works very hard for domestic violence… against domestic violence and her name is Anita Rumage, the Director of Voices… the Executive Director from 09600099.doc 4  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 Freeport, Illinois, and her son, Luke, is here paging as well. Would you make them feel welcome, please?"

"Will the Sponsor yield?'

"Representative Riley, let me… Mr. Speaker, I'm having difficulty hearing. Representative Riley, this language that you came up with on this Amendment, can you tell me again where this language came from and is it agreed language?"

"Well, my understanding is you're saying it's product negotiations. They're have been discussions, but as of this morning the Board of Managers, the Chicago Bar Association strongly opposes this Bill. Is that correct?"

"So, the Adoption Committee of the Bar is opposed to it, the Board of Managers of the Chicago Bar Association is opposed to legislation, yet we're proceeding. I wish I had the capacity of one of our learned adoption attorneys to argue this case with you. I'm disappointed that I don't have that knowledge. What also disappoints me is this was brought as a Floor Amendment and not brought to the full committee for consideration, at which time all those parties would've had the opportunity to express themselves. The part of the Amendment that has drawn the most attention is what Representative Feigenholtz has commented upon is that last line talking about fraud perpetrated upon the court. I guess the language in here is incorrect, perpetuated. Do you think that Amendment would suffice without that last line?"

"Well, I understand the negotiations and the attorneys involved and… but I would just like to tell my colleagues that this is a very important issue to the adoption community. It is opposed by the committee of the Chicago 09600099.doc 11  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 Bar Association that deals with adoption. It is opposed by the Board of Managers of the Chicago Bar Association and the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. All these individuals who deal with this issue, important issue, are opposed to this legislation. I'm going to cast a 'no' vote. We need further discussion on this Bill. Thank you."

"Thank you. Mr. Speaker, could the… could the status of the Amendments on this Bill… could we get the status of which Amendment we're…"

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

"Representative, let's talk about what you're trying to do here. Can you in some practical terms, kind of, relate to the Body what it is you're trying to do with this legislation?"

"I appreciate that, Representative, but my understanding is that what you're trying to do can already be accomplished with procedures that are in place that are designed to balance that interest with the protection of the birth mother and others involved in the process and that there's a very delicate balance that exists that needs to be maintained. And while your intentions might be to… to help an individual, when we're talking about due process in this case, one person's… one person's interests can't override the safety of everyone involved, even if in even narrow cases, someone might think that person should have a certain type of adjudication right. That's a concern 09600099.doc 13  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 because, and I understand your point about how narrow this is, but if it… if it changes that balance, that very delicate balance, it's something that we have to be really careful of the unintended consequences 'cause they could be severe."

"Well, that very… and I'm not obviously a lawyer that's versed in this, but I do know that some very important consideration should be given to the fact that those who know the most about this, those who are experts in this including the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys and the Chicago Bar Association, oppose this legislation as written and there is not an agreement that reflects the… the protection of that balance that I mentioned earlier. And if you want to achieve that, I would just simply suggest we are in the very beginning weeks of a Session that would allow you time to continue those negotiations, to amend this Bill again, and do it as was mentioned earlier in front of a committee where these concerns can come out rather than in this manner. I think… I think that's a reasonable request by Representative Sommer and others that you hold this process up and if you… if you choose to move forward, I don't think you're giving anybody in here any other option to vote 'no' because of the 09600099.doc 14  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 possible unintended consequences. Would you consider moving this back continuing to look at an agreed process since we have time?"

"Thank you, Representative. And I understand your point. With all due respect to your concerns, and this is a constituent issue that obviously is very, very important to you, I would caution the Body on this particular legislation that there is a great deal of concern among those who deal with these type of issues on a regular basis that this leaves a huge loophole, and one that could potentially be very, very dangerous and kind of tip a very delicate balance that exists. I respect… I respect the Gentleman and his right to move forward on this, but I would also ask that the Body vote 'no' at this time so this can continue to have a negotiations to bring something that 09600099.doc 15  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 isn't quite… quite as concerning to those who have the expertise. Thank you."

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

"Representative Riley, in Floor Amendment 1, you had a time limit of 12 months, I believe, where this action could be brought. Is that… is that correct?"

"And why in Floor Amendment 2 did you remove that limitation?"

"Why did you remove that in Floor Amendment 2?"

"So, now, you've… in effect, it's open-ended; it could be five years. And I… I'm just saying, one of the things that bother me is, as you said, in your case it was 38 days instead of 30 days and I… you know, I can understand being upset about that, but it makes a big difference if it was 38 days, or it was 380 days. And if there was… you mention also that this only deals with fitness. But am I correct in saying that if… if by giving these extra rights if… let's say the putative father, as an example, were successful, it's not just a question of fitness. Could he then… why couldn't he at that point then file a petition for custody? Why couldn't he then if there was an intervening adoption overturn the adoption?" 09600099.doc 16  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010

"But you know, I understand that, but the way the Bill reads he could file after 380 days if he claims that that's the first time he found out about this. He could wait that long… not wait, but if in fact, he did… he alleges he didn't know, he could… he could wait an unlimited time and then say, yes, I just found out about this, I just filed. Now, I'm going to file my petition. If he's successful then he could overturn an adoption in a subsequent… because in effect the adoption would fail, I would assume if he was successful."

"Well, why… why cant' he…"

"Well, under current law, doesn't he have the right to do that under current law?" 09600099.doc 17  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010

"Under current law, doesn't he have the right to a overturn that today without this law?"

"But I thought under even current law it says that if he could prove by clear and convincing evidence that… that his failure to register wasn't at fault and that he… and that he registered obviously within a… I think it was… what is it?"

"Right."

"Yeah. I… and again, I would be more comfortable with a Bill like this if there was some finality, some date like… I mean, I don't know maybe the year date was too long, but some date in there where there would be finality, especially in a case… well, in this case I would have to 09600099.doc 18  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 mesh it with the adoption laws and see how long it would take for that to become final and at least put it within that framework. Because I'm… I'm just fearful that I can, you know, the whole purpose of the putative registry in the first place was to get away from some of the cases that were decided, I think, it was the baby Richard's case, if I can remember correctly…"

"…years ago and I just don't want to go back to that situation again. So, at this time, as it is written, I can't support your Bill because I think there's a lot of unintended consequences that could arise. And it's something that I wish I would have thought of, but somebody else once told me in law school that, you know, bad cases make for bad law, and I think this is one of those examples. So, I would urge everyone here to… also urge you to continue to work on this, but not demand that vote today, but instead try to work with all the parties and come up with some other… and maybe there wasn't any agreed solution, but at least put some more safeguards, such as an outside time limit in it. Thank you."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for the suspension of House Rule to allow the immediate consideration of House Resolution 931. The rules to be suspended include the portion of House Rule 16(a) and 4(c) (3) that would otherwise prevent the immediate consideration of this Resolution. Under House Rule 54(a) and 2, all Motions are assigned Standard Debate status and I wish to debate my Motion. Upon conclusion of the debate, I ask for a recorded vote on the Motion to suspend House Rule 16(a). Under Rule 49 and Article IV, Section 8(c) of the Illinois Constitution, any vote shall be recorded… be a recorded vote whenever five Representatives shall so request. There are at least five Members on this side of the aisle that wish for a recorded vote on this Motion to Discharge this measure from the House Rules Committee."

"Yes, Sir." 09600099.doc 21  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010

"I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that being… with bringing it on the floor today would bring the debate forward. I think it's a very important Resolution and I think that immediate discharge of that Motion… or discharge of that Resolution to the floor would be appropriate."

"I believe that the committee as a whole, this group, would be able to debate the issue. It's a very clear issue and I think it would be appropriate timing at this time."

"Well, Mr…"

"Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important that we consider this right away because the administration… the Obama administration is considering this right now and so we need to move as quickly as possible."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On that point, we specifically request a Roll Call vote on the Motion pursuant to the rights granted under the House Rules of the Illinois 09600099.doc 22  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 Constitution. This breach of the rules should be corrected immediately with a Roll Call vote on the Motion to suspend the Rules on 16(a)."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do wish to appeal the ruling of the Chair."

"Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Representative Franks, I just want to make sure… that I'm clear as to what your Bill does. And again, it relates back to the RTA Bill that we passed a couple of years ago in which we gave the counties… which we increased the counties share of sales tax, I believe outside of Cook County, by a half a percent. And half of that half or a quarter percent goes to the RTA and a quarter percent goes to the individual county. Is that correct?"

"Right."

"Okay. And…"

"Well, what happens if between the time… up 'til the time that this… if this should become law, a county has issued bonds… I just want to make clear that the wording here as it talks about from then on once the law is passed, and they pass the resolution they can no longer use that tax. What would happen to any bonds issued between now and the time this Bill could become law?"

"Would that mean they'd have to find other ways to pay for their bonds?"

"So… so, if there are outstanding bonds, they would have to be paid first from the sales tax?"

"Right."

"But it… but does the language of your Bill actually say that? That… that's the only thing I'm concerned about because it says in there… if I can… Let's see. Okay. So, 09600099.doc 26  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 it does say in there a county may not opt out of any tax increase under this section if the proceeds are pledged to make principal interest payments on bonds or other long- term debt."

"Is that correct?"

"Right."

"Okay. And to your knowledge, has any of the counties that are affected by this not ready actually gone and sold bonds pursuant to this?"

"Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you… thank you."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a point of personal privilege."

"Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago we made a Motion to try to bring House Resolution 931 to the floor and I understand now that it was moved through the Rules Committee and assigned to committee. And I appreciate that, but I think it's very important that the people of this Body and the people of the State of Illinois know exactly what is in that Resolution and the importance of bringing it forward at this time because right now the President and his administration is trying to make some major decisions on issues that affect each one of us as citizens. American people have made it very clear that they do not want al- Qaeda terrorists being tried in our civil courts. They do not want them also being tried on our soil. We don't believe that they should be given Miranda Rights. We believe, many of my constituents, matter of fact, most of my constituents believe that they are just that, terrorists 09600099.doc 30  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 and that they are prisoners of war. I myself have served in the military as a United States Marine. I understand from NJP and the rules of war and the Geneva Convention on what those rules are and why it is that they should be tried outside of the courts of this United States. The Resolution is a clear message to President Obama and to the administration as a whole that we need to continue down the path that war is just that, it's war. There are rules of war. I know that many people who have not been involved in military think that's kind of an oxymoron or a statement that is very strange, but the reality is, is they should not be given the rights under the United States Constitution. They have attacked us both on September 11 and in many areas around this United States as well as around the world, against cole… the ship Cole, the attack on our military personnel, and civilians as well. I said I'm a United States Marine. I've got a son who's a Marine. He's a JAG in the Marine Corp. and they are taught specifically what the rules of law… are here in the United States, what NJP is, and what the rules of war are. And there is a clear definition between each. It is very important that we, this Body, send a clear message for our constituents and for the people of the great State of Illinois that we do not want these terrorists who have attacked us on our own soil and abroad to be tried on our soil and under the Constitution of the United States, nor should they be given those rights. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Resolution that was moved to committee, and I hope that it comes on out and gets there to the floor where we 09600099.doc 31  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 can vote on it, should have been voted on today. I think it is very important that we act quickly, that we act quickly to do what is right. And yes, that we in this State of Illinois do feel that these terrorists are not privileged to those rights that are given under the Constitution and should not be held here in this United States. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, point of personal privilege."

"I had some reservations to stand up and talk about the Resolution that Representative Bost referred to, but I can tell you as someone who sat across at a table from a person who was detained twice in American camps in Iraq these are folks that we need to think very strongly about whether we Mirandized them or not. I encourage both sides of the aisle, when this goes to committee, to think long and hard. We've all set through and stood through different moments of silences for individuals who have given their life. I think we owe it to them. I think we owe it to them and to those Illinoisans who are still overseas to give this a full review and it is my hope that the committee will do so. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A point of personal privilege."

"I'd like to… to address the urgency of House Resolution 931 and urge you, Mr. Speaker, to go ahead and call the Judiciary Committee into action here on the House Floor. We can stand aside for a second, we can vote it. And the reason it's urgent is because Washington needs to hear from the people that they say they represent. The present administration, including Director Holder, don't seem to have a handle on the importance of what's going on in the world today. To say that's somebody, an… an enemy combatant someone that our children are trying to kill today. We're using good American dollars and that's where they should be used to capture and kill the enemy, to capture and kill the enemy. Not American tax dollars to protect them and feed them, for God only knows how long, to provide them with legal council. That's not what you do to the enemy. A long time ago in Vietnam, I happen to capture a Vietcong. My squad was very fortunate. We… we swept through a hillside and had a little firefight and one… one of the enemy were wounded, and we captured this Vietcong. Now, American soldiers for generations have been good fighting men and women. We've also been fair, but we take advantage of the situation and this particular Vietcong that we captured, he was only slightly wounded. We blindfolded him called in a helicopter, helicopter picked him up, we put a… a Vietnamese speaking Arvin on the flight with him and when this Vietcong thought that he was 5 thousand feet off of the ground, we told him we were going to… we didn't, I wasn't on the helicopter, the translator said we… tell us where the enemy stronghold is or we're 09600099.doc 33  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 going to throw your… right out of this helicopter. And they threatened, they held him, the rotor blades are going, and he's up in the air, he can feel the wind blowing. Some of you would think that's cruel and unusual: he talked, he sang like a canary. They sat the helicopter down, in fact, it was only 10 feet off the ground, but he was scared and he talked. We treated him like an enemy combatant. We didn't read him his rights. We cared more about saving American lives…"

"An enemy that won't even dignify themselves by wearing a uniform. We should do nothing to protect their constitutional rights, treat them like the enemy they are. Treat them like the enemy they are. They should be sought out, captured or killed, and that’s the end of the story. If we have to detain them, put them at Guantanamo or put them somewhere, but don't put them in a courtroom here in central Illinois and say to them that you have the same rights and privileges of every American that ever died defending this nation. It's an abomination. It's wrong. So, bring the Bill right back here, bring the Resolution to the floor. Let's hear it today. Let's send a message to our President, so that once in his life he understands the difference between a corpsman and a core man."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, a point of personal privilege." 09600099.doc 34  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010

"I just want to speak on the Resolution that Representative Bost and Representative Stephens have been talking… Representative Watson, all of… men who have served in our military overseas. This Resolution is so important to all of us it is definitely a nonpartisan Resolution. We're talking about an issue regarding the rights of American citizens and homeland security. Right here in Illinois a lot of people are not even aware that within the last year people were convicted in Florida of attempting a plot on the Sears Tower. Just six months ago here in Springfield there was an attempted plot that was a sting operation including the FBI on the Federal Court Building in Springfield. Do we really believe all of the people here that people that are enemy combatants and terrorists should have the same rights as American citizens and to have all of their legal bills paid for by the tax dollars of the people that have been attempted to be attacked on our own soil? These are the issues that are in this Resolution. All of us, this is a nonpartisan issue, the people of Illinois feel that people that are enemy combatant terrorists should not have the same rights that people that go to civilian courts do. These are enemy combatants; they should be sent to military tribunals or military courts. They should not be given the rights of American citizens. We all are here on Memorial Day. We stand and talk about every service person that has died in the State of Illinois. Are we going to respect those people and not give the same rights of American citizens to enemy 09600099.doc 35  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 combatant terrorists who threaten our security? This is why this Resolution should be sent to Congress. The administration should see what the people of Illinois really feel about the rights of American citizens and the rights of American people in Illinois. Thank you."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, point of personal privilege."

"I join my colleagues in asking for House Resolution 931 to be called. I share with many in this Body the privilege of being called a veteran. I also share what many in this Body have done in their former life in law enforcement. And the reason I have such a passion for this particular issue is using an example of the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the situation following when the gentleman was arrested. He was treated as an American citizen. He was interviewed for… I hear different amounts of time, but in the neighborhood of 50 minutes, after which time he was advised of his constitutional rights… under Miranda. The ludicrousness of all of that is it has been shared internationally that anything and everything that the gentleman had to say was obtained in those first 50 minutes. It doesn't take anyone with a strong background at all, be it in the legal profession as a lawyer, as the legal profession for law enforcement, to know that in 50 minutes interviewing anyone very little information is obtained. It comes from a period of time, developing rapport, and in a situation such as the underwear bomber we should be looking at this as totally an enemy combatant. 09600099.doc 36  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 Be he not in uniform makes no difference. He came with the purpose of causing great bodily harm to the infidel in this great country of ours. This is an opportunity, this Resolution, to send to the White House to President Obama, a personal friend of many of us in this very Body, and point out our strong feelings so that Eric Holder hears it, other members of the administration, that it is imperative that this man be treated as a military operative as the terrorist that he is and not an American citizen with the same rights of you and I. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

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

"Representative, just a few questions related to the legislation. This isn't your first Bill either, is it? This is your second Bill?"

"Yeah. Okay. Can… can you, first of all, clarify the fact that this deals with those who work. This… this only deals with those who are working with the… individual or entity that is providing the local fair, is that right?"

"So, when you… when you include the term 'associated with', what exactly do you mean by 'associated with'?"

"So, it would be a Class IV felony for someone who is registered as a child sex offender to knowingly, and again, we get into some parsing of words here, but knowingly operate, manage, be employed by, or be associated with any local fair when person under ages of 18 are present. How would a child sex offender who was attending or working at or volunteering at one of these types of these local fairs know whether someone 18 or under was going to be there? Are they expected to just assume that because there's not a ID with age requirement that it could be somebody under 18, so is that knowingly?"

"Okay. So, in my area, we have… we have these local gatherings where individuals bring a fruit and vegetable in and a street is cordoned off and… is that subject to your… your legislation? Is that a…"

"Well… well, I think… I think here in Springfield there's a Farmers Market that takes place during certain times of the year when fresh vegetables are available and they close streets for the Farmers Market, okay. And in that case does the fact that the city is participating in the 09600099.doc 40  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 establishment of the Farmers Market qualify that they're helping to stage it? It's staged."

"Closing streets, setting up places for people to sell vegetables. Is that a staged event then, a Farmers Market?"

"Okay."

"So… so, would the municipality actually have to be hosting the event?"

"Okay."

"And I understand what you're trying to do here and I don't think anybody in this Body wants to put people in danger, especially for child sex offenders. I know that we have lots and lots of legislation every year that’s filed to try to protect children from predators. In fact, I actually have authored some that have to do with day-care centers and schools, and I think those are venues that because of the age group that is attracted to that locality 09600099.doc 41  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 that's kind of a… almost a shopping place for some of these predators, and I understand that. Carnivals were included kind of for the same theory. I'm just… and in no way want to make it look as if or we're talking about trying to protect those individuals. But how would they know, if they're subject to this?"

"I guess I'm… I'm trying to figure out how you apply this broad application."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just simply wait for other answers and listen to the conversation. I appreciate that."

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

"Representative, I brought this Bill before the House three or four years ago, and it included the carnivals and that’s where we had the carnival law today, but my original Bill as introduced included language such as yours and went through the same committee. And I think the committee that voted for your Bill this year asked me to remove that language four years ago, because it is so broad, because it is so hard to control. Who would be responsible, was the question they asked me, if someone did knowingly or unknowingly hire a sex offender to do work at one of these 09600099.doc 42  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 things? Would it be the booth? Would it be the municipality? Would it be the Chamber of Commerce?"

"I'm sure a lawyer would have a field day with that. I mean, these are… this is a very difficult situation and after hearing testimony that day in committee I removed that language because while we all have the same goal of keeping sex offenders away from our children, they determined that the fair operator or the carnival operator would be liable in my particular situation, and that's why it was allowed to move forward. I'm just not quite sure you're Bill's soup yet. We all have the same goal. But I think it needs more time to develop and we can get some more opinion on it, find out exactly how it'd be enforced because just putting the responsibility on a sex offender, I don't think would hold up. And we don't want our groups, our women's groups that put on lemonade stands, our 4-H kids, I mean, whatever it is we don't want them to be subject to having to enforce this. So, I guess I would ask that you take your Bill out and allow this to work a little bit more. We'll see what the rest of the debate goes on today, but we all have the same goal, just think this is a little far reaching."

"Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Representative, what incident has prompted you to put this Bill in?"

"Okay. So, one incident has prompted you to call… to introduce this Bill? Do you think that that’s good policy that one situation, we should change the Criminal Code?"

"All right. Now, I'm looking at the definition, and you know, people have already made… had some questions about it. It's loosely drafted in the way it could be interpreted, but I live in a municipality that often has Christmas walks that they do in conjunction… the Village of Western Springs… in conjunction with the Chamber of 09600099.doc 44  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 Commerce in which they open up the doors every… right around Thanksgiving, in which people will walk through the town and they'll walk inside the businesses and they'll have snacks, but also items on sale. Your Bill would prohibit those employers from having a sex offender working inside those establishments because they are work… they're in association with the municipality, correct?"

"Both, both. Absolutely. So, what you're telling the… the small businesses that if there's someone who's made a mistake, particularly an 18-year-old in a Romeo and Juliet situation, who still has to register three or four years after the fact and they're gainfully employed, they're working at a small business in that town, that they cannot operate and work on those days in which there is that Christmas walk or some type of holiday festival that those towns are having. Correct?"

"All right."

"But the understanding… the local businesses are now the ones who are going to have remove individuals from there employ during these situations, correct?"

"No, it isn't. It's on the businesses now, come on."

"It's going to be on the businesses. They're the ones who are going to have to find the individuals to be replaced on those days during those…"

"Well, I tell you what, let's get back to another question. Have you ever tried a case before? Are you a lawyer?"

"No. Do you think a… what do you think a state's attorney is going to do when they see this Bill, it goes into effect and how they're going to be able to interpret and actually argue this before a courtroom? You know, these are the things we do often down here. And we… we I understand that’s well meaning what you're doing, but what you're doing is that you're creating headaches beyond belief for the individual, the poor state's attorney who is going to have to interpret it and enforce this in a court of law. No one is going to vote against this. We know what your… what, you know… but you know, I… I think that, you know, people have made some good suggestions that… that quite frankly should be adhered to, and I would hope that when this is passed out of the House that you can work with the Senate on tightening this up, 'cause I think there's been enough good questions and enough situations in which we've… hypothetical situations that I think have not been discussed nor contemplated in this. So, good luck with 09600099.doc 46  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 this, but I see a problem when this is ultimately at the end of the day that someone's going to have to enforce this in a courtroom."

"Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, what in the world does the Gentleman have to do this afternoon that he's in such a big hurry that he can't hear from the rest of us who wanted to talk on this Bill? There were others who wanted to speak on this very important issue. The Bill has problems. The Lady should have taken the Bill out of the record. Members on both sides of the aisle were willing to sit down and work on the Bill, but no, the Gentleman has to move the previous question, because what's happening so important in his life that he has to go do that instead of doing what he was elected to do."

"And I've got a right to complain about it. I've got a right to ask for a Role Call vote. I got a right to ask for a verification. I've got… I've got rights, too. The Bill has rights… the Bill has rights to be tabled or taken out of the record so that reason could prevail instead of this hysteria. I want my 'no' vote to record the process by which this Bill was passed."

"Speaker, with all due respect, what room were you in on the Motion… on the vote for the Motion? It was clearly 'no', people were screaming 'no'. There were 14 people punched in wanting to speak on this Bill, Mr. Speaker. What room were you in? I didn't hear one 'yes'."

"Are you kidding me?"

"Speaker, all I wanted to do was ask the Sponsor… all I want to do… the Sponsor came over to me yesterday, was very nice. She asked… she said I heard you have a couple questions about this. I… I gave her my questions. All I want to ask her was what were the answers? What were the answers 'cause I didn't see them. There wasn't an Amendment to the Bill. I wasn't even given the opportunity. Fourteen people weren't given the opportunity. This is early, early in this Session, Mr. Speaker. I'll tell you what, I've sat in court and lost 09600099.doc 50  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 Motions defending laws because this Body doesn't take its time to do things right. Now, imagine what happens when a child sex offender walks out of jail because we didn't take the time to do this right. Mr. Speaker, that'll be on you."

"Representative Durkin is predisposed at this moment. So, I would… let's see, I guess the appropriate thing to do would be to move the previous question. I request…"

"Well, thank you. I just want to make it perfectly clear that my predisposition was getting my shoes shined, it was nothing else. I withdraw the Motion."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 4708 simply amends the Counties Code to allow public notice of a special-call meeting to be consistent with the Open Meetings Act. It cleans up an inconsistency in the County Code. This Bill is identical to House Bill 883 from last year, which passed overwhelmingly. The language was removed in the Senate by Amendment. I ask for a 'yes' vote."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill was brought to me by the parents of one of our Pages, here in front of us this… this afternoon. It amends the Criminal Code of 1961 to make it an offense to sell burglary tools, in particular, dealing with lock bumping and lock picks, for the purposes of terrorizing, I think, a lot of homeowners. 09600099.doc 54  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 According to the State Police, there have been thousands of unlawful entries into homes over the last two years, 78 thousand in 19… or 2008, and it's been growing at a four and a half percent rate over the last four years. There's a burglary every 6 minutes and 39 seconds. What we're trying to do is cut down on some of those unlawful entries by making it illegal to sell some tools that are being promoted now on the Internet and made available to a lot of people. There's the hope of those that have suffered illegal break-ins that by removing some of these very common tools that can work in seconds that we might be able to reduce these number of burglaries. I would ask for your support."

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

"Representative, I just, I'm… I'm looking this over. What is the clear definition of what these tools are? For instance, you know, I know people that can use a coat hanger and break into an automobile if it's bent in a certain way. What qualifies as truly burglar tools?"

"So, the Bill defines lock bumping to mean a lock picking technique for opening a bin tumbler lock using a specially crafted bump key. So, bump keys is a specific type of tool that can be used and very quickly rearrange the tumblers in the lock to open the door." 09600099.doc 55  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010

"So… so, somebody carrying around, say, for instance like dental tools that they might be using in their tool sheds and things like that, those…"

"Would not be covered."

"Okay. All right. Thank you."

"Excuse me?" Davis, M.: "Representative, would you name the items that are considered burglary tools."

"The Bill names those tools. And the Bill says a lock bump… a lock bumping key, and also it deals with lock picks." Davis, M.: "Is it legal to sell a lock bumping key today?"

"Yes." Davis, M.: "So, why would it be a Class IV felony if someone had in their possession a legally purchased lock bump?"

"This Bill does not deal with possession; it only deals with the sale of these tools." Davis, M.: "Where do you buy them?"

"So, these tools can be bought on the Internet and I assume some of our master key shops might carry them." Davis, M.: "And what purpose would they be selling them?" 09600099.doc 56  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010

"Commerce. They have a tool to sell, someone might want to buy it." Davis, M.: "So, how would you enforce this legislation?"

"It deals with selling the tools for any purpose. So, what we're trying to do is stop it before there is an intent to do damage. It is already an offense to possess some of these tools with the intent to use them illegally for illegal entry or burglary." Davis, M.: "Which legal law enforcement agency would enforce this law?"

"All law enforcement agencies that uphold the statutes of the State of Illinois." Davis, M.: "So, if I have purchased this bump… whatever this thing is… if I have purchased it and I intend to use it legally perhaps to get into my own home, because I'm locked out of my own home, I could be arrested and have a Class IV felony."

"No, no, you couldn't, because possession without the intent to use it illegally is not an offense." Davis, M.: "Do you think someone is going to say I intend to use this illegally?"

"Well, certainly if someone is caught in the act. Or someone that is caught with stolen merchandise that has this in their possession, that would also qualify…" Davis, M.: "Well, if someone is caught in the act, regardless of what tools they use, they would be committing a burglary. And they don't need to be, what shall I say, you know charged with the tools you have because they could merely have a hammer and a chisel." 09600099.doc 57  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010

"Correct. So, what we're trying to do here is prevent some crime by outlawing the sale of tools that would be used for burglary." Davis, M.: "So, you want to go to the… curren… no, where would they purchase this, Home Depot?"

"I'm not sure. I haven't done a survey of all of the retail outlets." Davis, M.: "So, in other words, we want to get at that merchant who is selling these tools. Is that correct?"

"Correct." Davis, M.: "Well, how does the merchant know what I'm going to use it for?"

"They probably wouldn't sell them." Davis, M.: "So, you want to say to the merchant or Home Depot or hardware store that it is illegal for you to sell this manufactured distributed tool because someone may have an intent on using it improperly?"

"Correct." Davis, M.: "So, then you are supportive of the gun laws."

"Excuse me?" Davis, M.: "You support the gun laws. You know, people could use them incorrectly. Representative Pritchard, why is IRMA opposed to your legislation?"

"They were opposed to it before it was amended. Since it has been amended and it clarifies the tool in very specific language, they indicated they were in support. You might have an earlier analysis before it was amended." Davis, M.: "Why are the truck operators opposed to this… tow truck operators, why are they opposed?" 09600099.doc 58  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010

"Again, that was the earlier… the original draft before it was amended. And they were opposing it…" Davis, M.: "And what does the Amendment actually do? How does your Amendment change this Bill? How does it change the opposition from those people who are concerned with a businessman's right to sell a legally manufactured tool?"

"Because we have defined what the tool is. The earlier version used language that's in the Criminal Code that they thought was too broad and too ill defined. So, in an effort to be very clear and to deal very specifically with the two tools that are used frequently, and were used in the case with my constituent, we named those in the Amendment. And that’s what's different about this Bill." Davis, M.: "So, Representative, they would go to jail for how long? If you had this, you know, you got locked out of your house and you went to the store and you bought these items and the police stopped you on your way home and you have these items and you're arrested because these are illegal items. How long would you go to jail?"

"You would not go to jail because you were not using this illegal." Davis, M.: So, the act of burglary has to occur before this Bill takes effect… I mean, before this sentence takes effect, you have to be in the act of burglarizing something?"

"No, this Bill deals with the sale of two specific tools…" 09600099.doc 59  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010

"Of this offense, yes." Davis, M.: "Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is kind of ridiculous to say that a salesperson is to know what the intention… your intentions are when you buy an item. How does the salesman know what I intend to do with it? For example, if I have a gun and you sell it to me, how are you going to be responsible for what I do with that gun when you sell it to me? And I know you have the excellent intention of stopping burglaries, but I think this might be the wrong tool. Thank you."

"Thank you, Speaker. I noticed that we've had a little bit more debate on this Bill than we did on the last one. So, let me ask Representative Pritchard a few questions, if he'd yield?"

"Representative isn't the purpose of this Bill to only allow people in a profession that actually need to use this the ability to possess it and then say that those 09600099.doc 60  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 average lay people cannot possess it. Is that really what the intention is here?"

"Correct."

"So, what we're trying to do is keep the bump key, which is used in numerous burglaries throughout the state, out of the hands of criminals. Is that what you're trying to do with this legislation, Representative?"

"We're trying to deal with the lock… or the bump key as well as lock picks that are used very frequently in burglaries."

"And we also talked about in committee the fact that you could possess certain tools like a chisel or hammer that may not be burglary tools in and of themselves, but you needed some type of intent then to make them into burglary tools like obviously stolen property next to that. We talked about that, right?"

"We talked about that and that's already part of the Criminal Code."

"Well, thank you, Representative, for bringing this. Bump keys have become much more prevalent in burglaries, and I think this is a good way to keep them out of the hands of criminals. And I would urge an 'aye' vote. Thank you."

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

"Representative, I… a couple years ago, I had this Bill that defined bump key. And the idea I got was from a 09600099.doc 61  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 police officer that was finding people walking the streets miles and miles away from their house and the only thing they had on their possession was a bump key. If anyone… if you look on YouTube, there's five thousand different ways of opening up a lock without having a key, and what you can do is you can open that lock within a matter of minutes or within a minute. So, I think the Bill that you're trying to present today is a good Bill because anyone that’s walking around with a bump key isn't walking around because they're afraid they're going to loose their keys, their intention, unless they're… unless they're a locksmith or something of that caliber, they're just looking to try to make a home invasion. So, I agree with… with your Bill, and I… I think that if any Members have any questions, just go on YouTube and you can see how easily and how fast you can open up a locked door. Thank you."

"Thank you… thank you, Mr. Speaker. 4717 is in response to a constituent issue that related to the purchase of vehicle plates for a type… or Class B truck. Currently, the statute allows for electric car plates, but not truck plates. The Secretary of State's Office was contacted; they helped draft legislation that would allow for electric truck plates and this basically expands their authority to do so. There's no opposition to the Bill. And again, I want to thank the Secretary of State's Office for helping solve this issue."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A point of personal privilege."

"On this Illinois Municipal League Day at the Capitol, I would like to welcome two members of my district from St. Elmo, Mayor Larry Tish and Alderman Chris Worman, who are in the Republican gallery. Let's give them a Springfield welcome."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. House Bill 4744 amends the State Property Control Act. It sets a threshold to which applies to the Executive Branch when they determine a property is surplus property. It sets that threshold at a million dollars. I believe many of you, like I, when we read or heard about the sale of the Thomson Prison ask ourselves how could the Governor or the Executive branch determine that it was vacant, number one, and surplus, number two. And that it was an asset that the replacement cost, which has been estimated as much as $300 million could possibly be sold without General Assembly approval. I believe that, that needs to 09600099.doc 64  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 have full debate by the General Assembly. We are cobranches of government, and we need to essentially be a part and partner with the Governor in the sale of any asset such as that. If you look at Arizona, which is currently selling 20 of it's state owned buildings including the Arizona State Capitol, they're doing that in full debate of the General Assembly and the General Assembly is involved in that decision. So, this isn't about jobs, this really isn't even about the Thomson Prison; this is about public policy and how we are going to dispense with assets that are valuable to the State of Illinois and what that process would be. I would urge a 'yes' vote. I would take some questions."

"Yes."

"No. No, only a sale of a property. And… and the threshold… this Bill just says this is a threshold that when it's declared surplus property."

"Well, I… I'm actually not trying to deal with future leases. I do believe that the Executive branch executes leases on a continual basis. If we occupy a building in one of our counties for driver's license facility or whatever it is, we already enter into lease agreements on that. We also have many buildings that we lease part of the building out to somebody else. So, we're already doing that. The leasing of the facility such as Thomson, if somebody wanted to lease it, they could do that now under current law."

"Well, actually, Representative, I believe that the debate should center about what the future use of Thomson is. I believe that asset has a future to the taxpayers of Illinois. I believe there's such a need for secured detention in this state that we should be full… full every day."

"I… I'm not trying to get at Thomson. I'm… trying to get at a public policy that says assets of significant value we need to decide about because, you know what, we make decisions in this Body on a land conveyance of a sliver of land that IDOT wants to give to a city. I mean, we vote on those all the time."

"Well, I am only targeting the sale of property, not the use of property. I'm not trying to hamstring the Governor when it comes to leasing a piece of property. I think he has that right. Now, I think he might have to do that from time to time. That's not what this Bill is. This is about liquidation of an asset."

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

"To the Bill. I rise in support of the Gentlemen's Bill, conceptually. Maybe some think that there might be some changes in the threshold whether that’s a million dollars, a half a million, five million, fifty million, maybe it's something that could be changed as the Bill proceeds to include only bonded purchases. But I think that if the General Assembly is asked to vote on the selling of bonds for an asset that they should have the right to determine whether or not that Bill or that facility is sold through surplus. This is a very major purchase and… and I don't think this should be a political issue whether you're for or against moving the… federal inmates in and the criminals from Guantanamo Bay. I hope you don't bring that into it because that isn't what this is about. The General Assembly has to vote on bond issues; they should get to 09600099.doc 71  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 vote on the closure of the sale. And I came to this General Assembly three years in a row to try to convey a land that was going to build a prison, spent $40 million on it, it was growing up in trees, but yet I had to come and talk to the Speaker and talk to the Members and pass that Bill over a three-year period of time just to give that land back to the city that purchased it to build the prison. We should do the same thing with this. The General Assembly voted for those bonds; they should get to vote for the closure. So, I rise in support of the Gentleman's Bill."

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

"Representative, talking about Thomson a little bit more, obviously that was declared surplus. Was the property being used at the time that the Governor declared it as surplus?"

"Yes, it was."

"And if it may not have been at full capacity, but it was… there were inmates there, right?"

"Yes, it… there were."

"So, can the Governor, prior… under current law can the Governor declare any state asset a surplus if he…"

"Well, that's a… that's an interesting question, Representative. Under the State Property Control Act, which was the… the General Assembly's Act which actually put in place statutes for selling properties that also put 09600099.doc 72  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 in rules that were adopted by CMS. There are three mechanisms to which the Governor or the Executive Branch could declare surplus property. And one of them is, is has to be vacant for three years with no foreseeable use in the next three years; one is it has to be vacant for at least the past six years; and one is that it is reported or transferred to the Director of the Central Management Services as unused property for which there is no foreseeable use. I submit to you that this was not unused property and that there is a foreseeable use for it. And I don't even believe that CMS met their own rules when they took this proposal to COGFA."

"Well, what about… could then we transfer the U of I to CMS director and we could count that as a surplus property or the lottery or the tollway. Is that really where we're at or does that fall under a different jurisdiction?"

"Under that… under the interpretation that's in this… currently being made, you could do that by transferring it to CMS."

"Well… well, to the Bill. And Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why people don't trust their government. In the middle of the night, the Governor goes off to visit the President and they talk about transferring property. There is no accountability here, there's no transparency, there's none of that. What it is, is a backroom deal to transfer some property to the Federal Government without any oversight, without any discussion. Maybe we'll transfer the tollway next to get ourselves out… out of this 09600099.doc 73  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 financial quagmire that we find ourselves in. Surplus property is just that. There is no use for it, there's not going to be a use for it; so, therefore, we can dispose of that property in a professional manner at a value that is at market value. So, I would urge an 'aye' vote. Thank you very much."

"Just a point of clarification, if I may, with the Sponsor. A previous colleague… I think discussed that her opined that this may not be constitutional to restrict an executive's authority to enter into contracts and for sale of… of assets. However, Representative, if I'm… memory serves correct here, we have to authorize the sale of all kinds of things, real property. I mean, I had to run a Bill last year, the State of Illinois bought a bunch of worthless units of former railroad right-of-way, I had to come to us in order to give it to my locals to use for parks… Speaker. Okay."

"Thank you. You know, I had to come to this Body to turn over that real estate for railroad right-of-way usage to local municipalities. Every year we have an IDOT jurisdictional transfer Bill that comes before us to do jurisdictional transfers. Routinely, this Body engages in authorizing and essentially permitting real-estate transfers. So, I guess I would disagree with my colleague who opined that somehow this is constitutional and because, quite frankly, this is exactly how we do business in 09600099.doc 74  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 Illinois. If there's anything out of place right now it is selling real estate that is owned by the taxpayers of Illinois to the Federal Government to warehouse these detainees, and I use that phrase extremely loosely, that is what is out of place. This Body should make that decision not one person. And I salute the Sponsor for bringing this forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

"That's correct."

"Well… and in answer to your question…"

"It does not. In fact… in fact, CMS testified that their currently looking at only 20 properties that this might actually affect. But I would like to kind of point out to you that it's not unusual in a real-estate transaction for a businessman to put a contract in contingent on certain things from happening and in contingent on zoning. Zoning may take two, three, four years, and he's not going to close on that property until he gets zoning. So, I think businessmen are used to contracts that they have to be held for as long-term until they get what they want."

"The other thing is the Governor should really package these together and come before he auctions them off or declares them surplus. That's what I think."

"I don't think it puts a cap on the public auction. I think if it went over a million dollars there would have to be a part of the auction that would disclose that this property, if it exceeds a million dollars, would have to have General Assembly approval. My guess is, the Governor or the Executive Branch will put packages together on assets that want to be sold and that assets that they think may generate more than a million dollars and they'll bring them here as a package, just like in Arizona and we'll vote on it."

"Well, I'm like many people I think here in the General Assembly we're surprised that a facility that was occupied was suddenly going to be declared surplus property and sold out from underneath the taxpayers of Illinois without full debate in front of the General Assembly. That… that… I was… I was appalled that… that… could happen."

"I don't ever remember a significant piece of property being sold without General Assembly approval, especially one of 200 million."

"If, yes, if he did it according to the State Property Control Act, that's correct."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill. I don't necessarily think that we would not sell the property, what I do think it leaves us open to various ways perhaps doing something. I was more for a lease and I certainly don't want to see the money going right into the general revenue fund, which is my understanding when I discussed this with the Governor's people for Thomson, in particular, that's where the money would go, and we seem not to have any say on that. This Bill has outstanding… this facility has outstanding bonds. If you get to discuss a sale of a property in the General Assembly, I think you could put some caveats on that sale as to appropriately where the money would go, what kind of uses, you could look at several alternatives. I was more for a lease, where you'd put a board together that would govern it. I wasn't against totally having it here or using that money for something, but we have no discussion if we don't have a Bill like this. And who's to say we're not going to have another Governor or some Governor at a future date is not going to mimic the one we just previously had that discussed all kinds of selling or if we're going bankrupt, what's going to happen. I think this just spreads the discussion over a broader group of people, one who may have various ideas, doesn't allow someone to cut a sweetheart deal on the side with a similar administration of another Party in order to assist them in placing people and selling it at a fire sale or the amount of money that would not go 09600099.doc 80  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 back into the way we would pay the bills off. I think that… I certainly support the area for this… for the one particular sale, but I think this looks at overall all sales and I think the Sponsor was being responsible in putting forth the fact that the General Assembly should take a look at it. I certainly don't think he meant anything by it for just one particular sale and I certainly also support the Representatives from the area where this particular prison lies as far as their economy goes, but I think there was a better way to serve the economy than the proposal that came out of the Governor's Office. And unfortunately, it was pretty stilted in the way it was presented and a lot of other people didn't have a discussion. I think there were a lot of better ways of doing it, which might have happened if it had come through the General Assembly. So, I support the Sponsor and his Bill; I think this is a good Bill. And I certainly think in the future we may want to have those discussions about other facilities. So, I would urge an 'aye' vote."

"The pressure isn't coming from my district. I've had phone calls… if you're talking about the issue on Thomson, both ways. I'm not getting a lot of pressure. I just feel that inherent in our authority is to deal with issues of 09600099.doc 81  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 substances in this Body and that a $300 million liquidation of a piece of property is significant. We ought to be involved in it." Davis, W.: "Well, your Bill says that if it's over a million dollars that it should come to us, correct?"

"Absolutely, and… and I think that… that is a significant amount of money. But more importantly, Representative, what I have issue with is the fact that the current rules and statutes are being interpreted to even think that this could happen. The… the rule that is being interpreted to allow this is it says that a property is reported or transferred to the director of Central Management Services as unused and for which there is no foreseeable future use." Davis, W.: "Okay. So… where does… where does…"

"I don't know how you get that you can sell something if it's being used." Davis, W.: "So… so, now you want the General Assembly to make the decision. So, are you negating the input of a COGFA? Because their job is to make recommendations on whether things like this should happen. So, you're just eliminating them completely out of the conversation and that we should be the ones to make that decision…"

"Not on… not on properties under a million dollars." Davis, W.: "…and then more importantly, then that, like your Representative who's sitting next to you talked about whether or not the money should go… or where the money should go. So, if we can't agree on what should happen 09600099.doc 82  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 with the money that means the deal is just off the table then, right?"

"Yeah. This doesn't have anything to do with COGFA." Davis, W.: "Correct?"

"The current Act… the State Facility Closure Act, which is what COGFA has to vote on, doesn't… this doesn't change this. This is a State Property Control Act. So, COGFA still has to vote and to declare it surplus property and then if it's more than a million dollars, then it'd have to come here." Davis, W.: "Okay. So… so, you feel COGFA still has a role in this."

"Absolutely." Davis, W.: "So, again, we're talking about what happens to the money. What if we can't agree on what happens to the money?"

"Well, we're not talking about what happens to the money. We're just talking about we're going to have a debate…" Davis, W.: "Well, you said the General Assembly should approve it. You don't think that when we're talking about millions of dollars that folks in this Chamber aren't going to want to have some say in what happens to the money? So, what happens then when we don't agree on that? Deal's just off the table."

"No, that's not what happens. It has nothing to do with the money generated from the sale and what it's used for, has nothing to do with it." 09600099.doc 83  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 Davis, W.: "It does have something to do with it, Representative, because again, if you're talking about my vote to say 'yes' or 'no' whether we should sell a property, yes, I'm going… I want some say in what happens to the money. I'm going… to want some say, whether it's human services, whether it's to go back into Corrections, since in this case, we're selling a prison, whether or not it should go back into Corrections. So, again, if we can't agree on what happens to the money then does that mean the deal is just off the table? If this Bill passes… which means that we have the ability to say yes or no, that conversation about what happens to the money is going to be a very real conversation. Because everybody in here, whether your side would agree or not, believe me they want some money on their side as well, 'cause they got some ideas on where the money should go as well. So, what happens when we don't agree?"

"You're making my case on why it should come to the General Assembly. For those reasons, that should come to the General Assembly. If we sell a piece of property and we have unappropriated revenue coming in, it'll be dispensed within that budget just like anything else would… would happen. If we had… the gas taxes that went up more than we had anticipated, we would appropriate and spend the money during the budget cycle. But you are making the case for why this needs to be debated. Because there are… there is a future use for that piece of property, in my opinion, and that's what we need to… that's what we need to debate." 09600099.doc 84  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 Davis, W.: "Obviously, I… obviously, have some trepidation with it and… and don't necessarily agree with you. And I think I don't disagree specifically for the reasons that your colleague said in terms of us having a debate on what happens to the money. Now, where they may not agree that the money should go into the general revenue fund and I can understand that, but again, obviously they want that money to go somewhere. And my thing is that we all want resources to… to fulfill needs that we have in the state, but if you bring it here and we have to vote, that means that there has to be some agreement on what happens to the money and unfortunately, I just don't see that happen particularly from what I've been hearing here debated on the floor for the past several days, because we can't agree on anything down here. So, if we can't agree on something like that then I don't think that this Bill is really going to get us to where we're trying to go other than just putting another control on the second floor. And I wonder if the second floor was under your control whether or not this Bill would be relevant as well. So, thank you very much, Representative."

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

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, there are few Bills that have come before this General Assembly in the eight years that I've had the privilege of being here that I feel more passionately either for or against and in this case, 09600099.doc 85  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 certainly against. I have had two passions in that eight- year period. One is the expansion of Highway 20, the other is the opening of the Thomson prison. In 2002, when I was elected, this state had financial issues. I was elected at the same time Governor Blagojevich was and we could not afford to open the prison. We now are some eight years later, our financial condition has deteriorated to the point that it is almost a total embarrassment just to be in this unbelievable crisis. I think it's important to say that I don't represent Thomson, my good friend, Representative Boland, does. I'm just north of that and just east of it, but I think it's fair to say that a minimum of 50 percent of the employees at Thomson prison would come from my district. That being said, the Gentleman, who is the Sponsor of the Bill and is one of my dearest friends, made a comment in his opening remarks that this is not about jobs. That's a direct quote, 'This is not about jobs.' Ladies and Gentlemen, for eight years I have watched the citizens of northwest Illinois, rural America, 15 percent unemployment. I know personally many citizens in and around Thomson that built gas stations, motels, car lots, houses, because if they build it, they will come. The state spent $145 million building a state of the art maximum security penitentiary to house 1600 maximum security prisoners. They said, bring us the worst, we'll gladly take them, we need the jobs. And for eight years, Representative Boland and I and others from the other side of the aisle have worked tenaciously to open Thomson prison. Financially, Ladies and Gentleman, we've 09600099.doc 86  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 not been able to do it. I will never argue that it wouldn't be good to have. The reality is we cannot afford to open it, and believe me, if we couldn't afford it eight years ago, we can't afford it today. Here's where we're at today. Out of the clear blue, the Federal Government comes to us and offers us an opportunity of $85 million a year in economic impact. Let me restate that, $85 million a year in economic impact, if we open that prison. And in the first four years, Ladies and Gentlemen, the first four years, $1 billion due to the addition of another fence and more building on the facility. Everyone of us in here, from time to time, have new jobs come to our community. Guess what, Jim? We're going to have a new factory coming. It's going to employee 20 people and they're going to get $13 an hour, and we are excited and rightfully so. All of a sudden the Federal Government tells us we aren't willing to bring two to three thousand new jobs, all federal law enforcement positions, every position there will be federal law enforcement all paying 50 to 100 thousand dollars a year. Never have I seen anything like that in my eight years in this General Assembly. And it's not about jobs? Ladies and Gentlemen, I can't even comprehend what it must be like to be the Governor and try to work through the maze of balancing dollars in this great state when we are in such a financial crisis. And to say that somebody went off in the middle of the night and did a backroom deal, come on, that's a good press pop, but it's not even close to reality. Another Gentleman, a dear friend of mine from the other side of the aisle, used a very excellent word, he 09600099.doc 87  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 said it has been underutilized. Governor Blagojevich brought around a hundred to a hundred and twenty minimum security prisoners to that facility. To all practical purposes, Ladies and Gentlemen, it sits vacant. All of a sudden, out of the clear blue, through imaginative work and I don't know how they made it happen. And I understand where my good friend, Representative Tryon, is coming from, but at this time when we have this opportunity, this opportunity, Ladies and Gentlemen, not only for Thomson, Illinois, but for all of the great State of Illinois, that kind of economic impact is unheard of. And we're going to try and kill it. And let's face it, folks, in many cases not on this floor, I don't believe, but in many cases there have been those that have tried very, very hard to make this a partisan issue. Twice I've appeared on national syndicated radio and television and they say, well, Representative Sacia, you're taking… you're taking an opposite view of your Republican colleagues. Give me a break. All I want to do is see jobs come to northwestern Illinois. The rarest opportunity we have ever had. And yes, I can make the argument let's sell it to the INS or lease it to the INS. I personally wrote a letter to Haley Barbour, the former Governor of Mississippi. I wrote to the Governor of Louisiana following Katrina, when they had 2 thousand prisoners and no place to put them. Said bring them on. Twice… twice I went to Governor Blagojevich's Office and asked for his help to open this facility. Let's lease it; let's do something. We have people that really need the jobs in northwest Illinois. This is a legal 09600099.doc 88  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 effort of the Governor. This is an opportunity. It will be appraised and yes, you can make an argument that we still need a new one and it'll cost more than $140 million to build. Ladies and Gentlemen, there's $238 million in the federal budget to buy Thomson prison. Is that what's going to be spent on it? I have no idea. From my perspective, I don't mind what we get for it. You bring $85 million a year in economic impact to northwest Illinois, you can be a Republican, you can be a Democrat, you can be a Libertarian, you can be a Green Party, that…"

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. Ladies and Gentlemen, if I have… and I'm sure I've asked for markers from time to time. We talk to each other about helping with legislation. I'm on the opposite side of my good friend, Representative Tryon. I understand where he's coming from. I truly do. I cannot imagine returning to northwest Illinois where I have received no less than 27 resolutions from communities in and around Thomson, 27, Ladies and Gentlemen, saying please sell this to the Federal Government. You guys, Representative Boland, myself… Senator from the other side of the… in the rotunda, across the rotunda, I'm sorry. We have worked so hard to open this. We haven't been able to do it. To go back and tell these folks that once again we get shot down. I… I can't even imagine it, Ladies and Gentlemen. And again, I understand the legislation, I understand the solid points about it, but to take away two to three thousand new jobs, 09600099.doc 89  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 high paying, federal positions to northwest Illinois because to some it makes more sense. Put partisanship out of your mind on this one, folks. This is one that really…"

"With all due respect, I move the previous question."

"This Bill is about public policy change for the State of Illinois. It's about how we are going to liquidate assets of value within our state. That's all this Bill is. It's not a debate about the Thomson prison and it's for that reason as you heard today from Representatives on both sides of the issue why we need to debate these types of transactions. But let me tell you since we've started talking about Thomson why I don't think it's in the best interest to liquidate that asset. It's because there is such a need across this country for secured detention between INS, the U.S. Marshalls, other counties, and other states that we shouldn't even have a prison that has vacancies. We should be able to fill that up by having a prison that rents space to other entities such as U.S. Marshall or INS. When I was County Board chairman, my county did an addition to its jail and we entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. Marshalls and INS and every day in McHenry County we house 300 Asian female 09600099.doc 92  STATE OF ILLINOIS 96th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 99th Legislative Day 2/17/2010 detainees who are awaiting for adjudication in Chicago. My county made $12 million doing that last year. The INS representatives told me when I was County Board chairman that on any given day there were 500 detainees in Texas that had to be shipped to Chicago for adjudication because the law was you had to adjudicate at the point of entry. Now, that has merit; that is worth debating. That is a use that the State of Illinois could put forth for Thomson and keep control of the asset and 20 or 30 years from now when we need more prison space we could have more prison space. So, you see, these types of things need to be debated. We shouldn't be out trying to interpret the rules that are set forth for disposal of surplus property that say it has to be unused and try to skirt that by saying, well, we don't see there's any foreseeable use for it. That's not right. This law that we operate under today isn't being interpreted in a correct way. It needs to be done right under full debate. We need to have 118 of us have input into that. I respect COGFA, but I didn't give up my right to vote on something like this to COGFA. I would urge an 'aye' vote. In Arizona, they're doing it the right way. In other states they're doing it the right way. Let's do it the right way, have a debate. Find a use for Thomson that creates jobs and opportunity for the Thomson area and let's finds a use that's in the best interest of all of Illinois. I urge an 'aye' vote."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Inquiry of the Chair."

"The Clerk read in when the committee meetings were to meet and actually said at 2:00 and I'm not sure, but maybe I'm wrong, I think 2:00 passed. Did I miss that? The what… the time the meetings are actually supposed to go."

"Okay. And then the 4:00… should be done by 4?"

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Medicaid Reform Committee, which was supposed to meet at 10:00, will not be meeting tomorrow also. Thank you."

"Speaker, there's some confusion. What… what… what was canceled this afternoon."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker."