Illinois Senate Floor Debate — March 3, 1995

Messages from the House.

A Message from the House by Mr. McLennand, Clerk. Mr. Presiden: - I am directed to inform the Senate Ehat the House of Representatives has passed bills of the following titles, in the passage of uhich I am instructed to ask the concurrenee of the Senater to wit: House Bills 632, 660, 119, 355 and 598. Al1 passed the House, March 2ndy 1995.

The Illinois Information Service requests permission to tape today's proceedings. Is leave granted? Leave is granted. On page 2 on today 's -- Calendar in the Order of 2nd -- Bills 2nd Reading . I would hope that the Members would move thelr bills.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) For what purpose does Senator Dunn arise?

Thank you, Mr. President. In order to help the process, I'd llke to make a motlon to discharge Bill 730 from Senate Rules Committee for the purpose of tabling.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) That motion is always in order. We just need a motion to table, Senator Dunn. Senator Dunn moves to table -- Senate Bill 730. Those in favor will say Aye. Opposedy Nay. The Ayes have I 1 2  STATE 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY RZGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 it. The bill is tabled. Senator Klemm, on Senate Bill 62. Out of the record . 63. Out of the record . Senator de1 Vallez on Senate Bill 72. Out of the record. Senator Peterson. 76. Out of the record. Senator Raica. Senate Bill 80. Out of the record. Senator Woodyard. Senator Jacobsy on Senate Bill 118. Read the billz Mr. Secretary.

Senate Bill 118. A (Secretary reads title of bill) 2nd Reading of the bill. The CommitEee on Transportation adopted Amendmenk No. 1.

PRESIDING OFPICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Are there further anendments approved for consideration?

No further anendments reported, Mr. President.

PREEIDING OFFICEA: (SENATOR WEAVER) 3rd Reading. Senator Klemm, on 122. Out of the record. Senator Peterson, on 133. Out of the record . Senator Klemmr on 150. Read the bill, Mr. Secretary.

Senate Bill 150. (Secretary reads title of b11l) 2nd Reading of the bill. No Committee or Floor amendments, Mr. President.

PRESIDING OFPICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) 3rd Reading. Senator Syverson, on 168. Out of the record . Senator Thomas Dunn, on 227. Read the bi11, Mr. Secretary.

Senate Bill 227. (Secretary reads title of ,bil1) 2nd Reading of *he blll. No Committee or F'loor amendments, Mr. President . 3  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) I I 3rd Readinq. 237. Read the billz Mr. Secretary. I I SECRETARY HARRX) j Senate Bill 237 I . I (Secretary reads title of bill) I I 2nd Reading of the bill . No Committee or Ploor amendments, Mr. I I President. I I PRESIDING OFPICER: (SEKATOR WEAVER) I I 3rd Readlng. 292. Senator O 'Malley. Senator O'Malley, on I 292. Read the b1l1, Mr. Secretary. 1 I ' I SECRETARY HARRY: I I Senate Bill 292. I (Secretary reads title of bill) I I 2nd Reading of the bill. No Commiktee or Floor amendments, Mr. I I president. I I PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) I 1 3rd Reading. Senator Syverson: on 363. Out of the record. j Senator Siebene on 365. Out of the record. Senator parker on khe I I Floor? Senator Dehngelis on the Floor? On page 5 we'11 go to the l Order of House Btlls on 3rd Reading. Senator Dillard, on House Bill 20. For what purpose does Senator Cullerton arise? 1 1

Yes. Thank you, Mr. president. We Nould ask to have a brief Democraeic Caucus before We consider this bill.

PRESIDING OFPICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) The Senate Wtll stand in recess. HoW long will you be: Senator Cullerton?

Forty-five minutes. PRESIDING OFPICER 1 : (SENATOR WEAVER) I All right. Wefll stand in recess until the hour of 11. I I I I I 4  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 ' I (SENATE sTANos IN Rzcsss) I 1 (SENATE RECONVENES)

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) We will return to House Bills 3rd Reading, buE in the meantime we'll read in some Senate bills. Mr. Secretary, Senate Bills lsk Reading. Introductlon of Bills. Excuse me.

Senate Bill 831: offered by Senator Fitzgerald. (SecreEary reads kltle of bll1) Senate 3ill 832, by Senator O'Malley . (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate 3i11 833, by Senator Farley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate 3i11 834 is offered by Senator Welch. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate 3i1l 835, by Senator Dlllard . (Secretary reads title of bilk) Senate 3i11 836, by Senators Dillard and Lauzen. (Seeretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 837, by Senators Dillard and Lauzen. (Secretary reads tëtle of bill) Senate Bill 838, by Senator Hawkinson. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate 3i1l 839, by Senator Pe*ka. (Secretary reads titl/ of bill) Senate Bill 840, Senator Cronin. (Secretary reads tiEle of blll) Senate B11l 841: Senator Cronin. (Secretary reads title of bi1l) I 5  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Leçislative Day March 3: 1995 Senate Bill 842 is offered by Senator Cronin. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senator Cronin offers Senate Bl1l 843. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 844, Senator Cronin. (Secretary reads title of bill) l Senator Smkth offers Senate Bill 845. (secretary reads bitle of bill) Senate Bill 846, by Senator Smith . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 847, Senator Smith. (Secretary reads title of bll1) Senate Bill 848 , Senator Smieh. I (Secretary reads title of bil1) . Senate Bill 849, Senator 5m1th. : (Secretary reads title of bill) Sgnate B11l 850, offered by Senators Raica, Farley and others. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 85l is offered by Senator Klemm. (Secretary reads tit1e of bi11) Senate Bill 852, Senator Cronin . (Secretary reads title of bi11) Senate Bill 853 , Senator Rauschenberger . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 854 , by Senator Molaro . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate B1ll 855, by Sena*or Rauschenberger. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 856z Senator Rauschenberger . (Secretary reads title of bill) Sgnate Bill 857, Senator Dillard. (Secretary reads tit1e of bi11) 6  STATE 0K ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 I Senate Bill 858, by Senator Dillard. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate B111 859, by Senators Maitland, Jones and others. (Secretary reads title of bill) . Senate Bill 860 is offered by Senator Sieben. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 861, by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 862, by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 863, by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) I Senate Bl11 864, Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 865 is presented by Senator O 'Malley . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 866 ê Senator O 'Malley . (SecreEary reads tit1e of bill) Senate Bi1l 867 , Senator O 'Malley . (Secretary reads tit1e of bi11) Senate B111 868 , by Senator Hawkinson . (Secretary reads tit1e of bi11) Senate Bill 869# by Senator Severns. (Secretary reads tttle of bi11) Senate Bill 870 , by Senator Severns . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Btll 87l, Senator Severns. (Secretary reads Eitle of bill) Senat:e Bi.11 872, by Senator Hall. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 873, by Senator Hall. (Secretary reads title of bill) 7  STATE OP ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRTPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 Senate Bill 874, by Senator Hendon. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 875, Senator Hendon. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 876, Senator Demuzio. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bl11 877, Senator Demuzio. (Secretary reads tikle of bill) Senate Bill 878, Senator Smith. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 879, Senator Smith. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 880, Senator Carroll. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 881, Senator Carroll. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 882, Senator Severns. (Secretary reads Eitle of bill) Senate Bill 883, Senator Severns. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 884, Senator Severns. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 885, Senator Severns. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 886, Senator Tom Dunn. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate B111 887, by Senator Cullerton. (Secretary reads title of b1l1) Senate Bill 888, by Senator Cullerton. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 889, by Senator Cullerton. (Secretary reads title of bill) 8 : -.  STATE OF TLLINOTS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 Senate Bill 890, by Senator Berman. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 891, Senator Petka. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 892, by Senator Tom Dunn. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 893, by Senators Hawkinson and Tom Dunn. (Secretary reads title of bi11) Senate Bill 894, by Senator Hawkinson, and also Senator Tom Dunn. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 895, by Senators Hawkinson and Tom Dunn. (Secretary reads title of bill) fenate Bill 896, by Senators Havkinson and Tom Dunn. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 897, Senator Tom Dunn. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 898, by Senator Eleben. (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate Bill 899, Senator Parleyy and also Senator O'Ma11ey. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 900, by Senators O'Malley and Farley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 901, by Senator Fitzgerald . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 902, Senator DeAngelis. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 903, by Sena*or Walsh. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate B111 904, by Senator Walsh. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 905, by Senator Walsh. 9  STATE o/ ILLINoIs 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Leqislat' ive oay March 3 , 1995 (Secretary reads title of bill) And Senate Bill 906, by Senator Walsh. (Secretary reads title of bl11) lst Readin: of *he bills.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) We will revert back to the Order of House Bills 3rd Reading. Senator Dillard, do you wish to call House Bill 20? Mr. Secretary, read the bill.

House Bill 20. (Secretary reads title of bill) 3rd Reading of the bill.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) WAND has requested permission to videotape. Is leave granted? Leave is granted. Senator Dillard.

Thank you, Mr. Presldent, and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. I stand today as the sponsor of House Bill 20: the civil justice amendments of 1995. I stand today as the sponsor...

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Maybe a11 of them won't work. Senator Dillard, do you wish to move over to Senator Hasara's desk? For What purpose does Senator Dudycz arise?

Thank you, Mr. President. I would move that we table -- that *he Senate table fenate Bil1 463.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) 453?

463.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) 463. Senator Dudycz moves to table Senate Bill 463. Is there 10  STATE 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 leave? Leave is qranted. Senator Dillard.

Thank you, Mr. President and Ladies and Gentlenen of the senate. We 'll try again. Mr. President and my fellow Senators, I stand today as the sponsor of House Bi1l 20# which is the civil justice amendments of 1995. This is the much discussed tort reform legislation, which we've all heard about which calls upon us to return fairness, predictability and responsibility to the civil justice system in Illinols. As an attorney, myself, have faith and belief in the value of our court sysEem and th9 importance of the right of people to seek redress for their grievances. And as an attorney, I guessr like most of us who are attorneys in this Body, I obviously have a conflict of interest on certain provisions of this bill, but 1111 do What I believe I do on every bill, and that's do Whatfs right for my district and what's right for the people of Illinois. I have, as many of you r become increasingly concerned over the past few years with the ways in khich our system of justlce, whlch we hold very dear, has been consistently and continually pushed from its foundation. Many now believe tha: they should have the right to sue and receive award for slight, or for lnconvenience, or for minor injury. Many also believe that their compensation should be unlimited. I stand before you today urging protection of the systen which affords a forum for redress of those grievances with a measure of responsibility for those presumed rights of the actions of the plalntiffs themselves. When injured people receive different awards for Ehe same injury solêly based upon What county they file the lawsuit, or literally in sone instancesr khey 're in the next court room , we have a problem. And When business people and professionals view the civil justice system and our eourts, not as somethins to be protected and held ln high esteem, but scmething to be feared as a business person, or a 11  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLX REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Leçislative Day March 3, 1995 professional, or a defendant, We've got a problem. When concepts and rules which we believe will be in the place for generations to come to provide safeguards for vicEims, when theydrg tkisted and changed overnight in various courtrooms throughout the State of Illinois, wedve got a problem. House B&1l 20 will seek to correct some of these problems by establishing once and again that one's fault is the basis of their liability to another in tort litigation in this State. Concepts such as fault and the legal term ''privity'', meaning a direct relationship between one who is injured and one who eauses the injury, have been abandoned over the years. We have a system which is more intent on redistributing assets than on compensating victims. When defendants can act with disregard for responsible care, or at times inpunity, because their belief that they Will not have to pay for their proportional share of their own faultr we have a system that's run amok. Our system has reached so far, Mr. President, ln an effort to conpensate those who are injured, that is noW stressing the award cf large sums of money to individuals, Without due consideration to the true amount of Which that victim may have been harmed, the individual or entity Which has caused their harm, or the impact an lndlvidual auard may have on society as a whole. For this reason, I believe we need parameters for at least objective element for the least cbjective element of damages and that's nonecomonic damages. By this bill we do not say or imply that people who that people do not truly suffer pain as a result of their injuries. What Wê do say though, is that no one can truly know what ehe cost or value of that pain and suffering may be. Therefore, is wholly appropriate that we provide reasonable llmits on nonecomonic damages in order to provide and appropriate compensation While adding back to our system an element of fairness and parameEers. This bill will provide rgasonable limits on the levels of punitive  STATE OP ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Leqlslative Day March 1995 damages, also, in order to ereate a rational guideltne which would accurately reflect the purpcse and historical background of punitive damage awards. is appropriate to punish When punishment is due. However: the punishment must be appropriate to the course of action and give due consideration to the purpose of that punlshment. That is to stop aberrant behavior and not to Golely enrich one plaintiff. PunlshmenE, such as the loss of business lieense, criminal eharges, admlnistrative sanctions and other measures are -- are oftenkimes more appropriate than the award of punikive damages themselves, over and above any compensatory award. We must take steps to reduce the systematic costs of tort recovery in this State. And to this end, this bill does a number of things to speed up the discovery process and provide that records, which would be available in any eventy are nade available more quickly to hold down the incredibly rising cost of civtl litigation. In instances in which an awardr such as a workmen's compensation award has been madee and damages are fairly Well settled, we must linit additional litigation seeking contributkon from employers to the appropriate measure of their responsibiltty under Illinois law. That is the amount they have paid in Workers' Compensation. No one wants unsafe products in the State of Illinois. However, in order to protect the economic health of our businesses we must provide for rational review and limits on the way in which product liability litigatlon may be brought. We don't know how many good products have not come to market because of tbe fear of litigatlon. We also do not know hou nany units of local government have curtailed activities for our children and our families, or ltmited access to their facilities, and in many cases schools for extracurricular actlvities, or have acted in other self-proEecEive ways solely because of the fear of being sued. Thus, House Bill 20 seeks to reduce the frequency and severity or civil claims by modifying the Code of Civil Procedure 13  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3: 1995 and related laws to pernit al1 parties to have redress of qrievances and then get on with their lives. The debate has sadly focused sometines, Mr. President, on this bill -- on the focus -- and that has been on emotionalism. There has been discussion of those plaintiffs who have been injured. They deserve our consideration, obviously. They deserve our respecty our support and they deserve compensation for their losses. They do not, however, deserve unlimited compensation regardless oe their measure of loss. Little has been made of the cost to being a defendant in the State of Illinois, even thouqh those defendants kho have been negligent have a similar right they do under Illinois 1aw to be protected just like the victim. Where the constitutional remedy for one who has been forced to pay more than their damage, which can clearly and objectively be shoWn to have been caused by their behavior? Where is the constitutional right for a remedy to one who has been forced to pay more than kheir relative share in the danages solely based because they were khere as an unintended, and scmebody who was forced to bear more than their proportional fault because they Were there as a defendant? I believe that the election results of Novenber 8th said a number of things. But one cf those messages was, the people of this State said that lt's time for people to be responsible for their own actions. Every analysis of our court system and the view of it held by our citizenry, which I an familiar, has iqdicated that people do not believe our courts hold people responsible for their own aceions. This bill is an effort to return some sense to a system that I believe has gane astray, along with most of the citizens cf this State. I'd urge your support. IId be happy wiEh my cosponsorsr Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Cronin and Senator Barkhausen to ansver any questions which you may have.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Is there dtscussion? Senator Thomas Dunn. 14  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRTPT 22nd Legislatkve Day March 3: 1995

Thank you, Mr. President. Wellg lt's obvious from today that Washinqtonr D.C. does not have a lock on constitutional issues and questions . To those future constituents who will always ask, HWhy do criminals have more rights than victimsr' they can now addr ''Why do criminals have a right to a jury trial, but I as a victim do not?'' You trust a jury to kill, but not Eo compensate. How distorted that ts. This bill elevates money over life, sometimes a life of pain and suffering. No one knows the cost of suffering, except the people that vote Aye tcday. There are many conskitutional questions Ehat are raised by this. House Bill 20 is in violation of the Constitution of the State of Illinois in one or nore of the following ways: violates the preamble, assurance of legal, social and economic justice; It violates Article 1, Section 2 by depriving persons of property without due process of law and denies persons the equal protection of *he laws; It violates Article 1, Section 12 by denying persons a certain remedy in the law for a1l injuries and wrongs which they receive to their person, privacy and property and reputation and by preventlng persons from obtaining justice by law freely, completely and promptly. The provlslons is a dlrect descendant of Coke's lnterpretation of Chapter 20 <sic> (40) of the Magna Carta. Edward Coke, Second Institutesw 55-56: (4th ed. 1671). Tt violates Article Iy keckion l3, which guarantees the right of a trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate. For example, caps on damages infringe strongly on fact-finding function of the jury in assessing appropriate damages. Since the assessment of damages is a fact issue committed to the jury for resolution, a limitation on the performance of that function is a limitation on the role of the jury. It's truep of course, that a court has the power to set aside a verdict or order a new trialr order a remittktur or a judgement notwithstanding the verdict, but 15  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day . March 3, 1995 I those powers may be exercised only by applying the proper legal i standard to the facts of a specific case. In contrast, the Act would requkre the court to ignore a verdict in an amount above the cap, which is supported by evldence, and instead enter judgement for the cap amount. This extraordinary requirement bears no relation to the doctrines of renittitur, new trial, judgnent notwlthstanding *he verdict, and it cannot be found upon *he court's inherent power over verdicts and judgments. Indeed, there 'exists no permissible basis far entering a judgment prede' termined by the Legislature in place of a judgment on a verdict properly reached by a jury. It violates Article 1, Section 18 by denying equal proteckion of the laws on account of sex by the State. It violates Artlcle 1, Section 23 by allowing wrongdoers to escape recognition of their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. It violates Article IV, Section 8 because it fails to be conflned to one subject. It violates Artkcle IV , Section 13 as it constitutes a special 1aW where a general law can be made applicable. It violates Article VI, Section 1 as it represents an invasion and usurpation of the judicial power which is vested in the Supreme Court, the Appellate court and the circuit courts. It violates Article VI, Section 9 as it interferes with the court's original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters. It viclates Article VI, Section 16 because is invades and usurps the general administrative and supervisory authorlty over all courts Which is vested in the Supreme Court and which shall be exerclsed by the Chief JusEice in accordance with its rules. It vlolates Article 1, Sectlon 6 as an invasion of privacy. House Bill 20 is a violatlon of the United States Constitution provisions guaranteeing the right to a trlal by jury, equal protection and due process. House Bill 20 represents a dastardly, cynical and politically driven, unconstktutkonal assault on the judicial branch of the State. The most glaring 16  STATE 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 aspect ks that it violates Article IIy Section 1 of the Constitution as an exercise by the Legislature and executive branches of power properly belonging to the judicial branch. The Act overrules cases -- after case decided by our Appellate and Supreme Courty such as Gilbert versus Sycamore Hcspital and its progeny - apparent agency; Kotecki versus Cyclops and its progeny - the relationship between contributlon and workers' compensation; Suvada versus White Motor Company, and its progeny - 1965, product liabllity; Petrillo versus Syntex, its progeny - physical Isic> patient privilege; Wrlght versus Central Dupage Hospital and its progeny - caps on damages; Tweedy versus Ford Motor Company and its progeny - no expert required ïn certain product liability cases; Ward versus K-Mart and its progeny - open and obvious danger defense; Lee versus the CTA - liabilities for injuries on public property; O'Connell versus SE. Francis Hospital - *he principal of sanctity of the Suprene Court rulemaking powers; Lannon, which encouraged settlements; Laue versus Leifheit, requiring the trial of a contributton case with the prlmary case; Grace versus Howlett - mandatory arbitration; Varelis versus Northwestern - wrongful death actions; Khatib versus McDonalds - rules requiring admissibility of other lnjuries; Henry versus St. John's Hospital - filing of contribution action With the primary case; and Jones versus O 'Young - experts' specialty qualifications. It was so eloquently stated over two hundred years ago by our founding fathers: The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution. By a linited constitution I understand one Which contains certain specifled exceptions Eo the legislatlve authority. Limitations of this kind can be reserved and practiced no other way that through the medium of the courts of justkce whose duty it must be to declare a11 acts contrary to the manifest tender of the constitu*lon void. Without this, al1 reservations 17  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 of *he parEtcular rights or privileges would amount to nokhlng . ; If the Bill of Rights is incorporated intc the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice Will consider themselves in a ' Peculiar manner the suardians of those rightsr theywillbe j impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power, ' legislative or executive . Thank yau .

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further discussion? Senator Carroll.

Thank you, Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. Following the lead of the lead sponsor: Ir too, am an attorney; however, I have no conflict. We do not handle these kind of cases and never have and mcst llkely never will. However, I think there is an issue here that we should address a little more closely and that's the concept of punitive damages, what lt's for and what it's about. Thls legislation, House Bill 20, will attempt Eo limit the dollars awarded in a punitive damage case and change the burden of proof for proving an action that would require punitive damages. And theygve tried to set a, in my opinion, ridlculous and nonsensical standard of three tlmes the economic loss. Think about your own constituents. If you have a housewife uho happens not to have a job and gets injured in a case where a judge, jury . and anybody in the world would say punitive damages should apply: three times her lost Wages? What are the wages for being a homemaker and -- and raising children? None. That would greatly limit her right to recover as compared to a next-door neighbor, a woman who happens to have to work for a livinq and lost months of time and would have tha: within the calculation of what is I punitive damages. It changes the burden of proof and changes i long-standing Illinois common 1aW. If you look at What it's about though, why the hue and cry? punltlve damases is really a nonissue in Illinois. It happens very, very, very rarely. In 18  STATE 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 only less than one in one thousand cases is it even an issue. In the recent statistics of the Cook County Jury Verdlct Reporter, the number of punitive damage awards in personal injury cases over the .lasE eighteen years was one hundred and eighty-three cases. That clearly does not do anythLng to lëmit anyone's right to do business but changing it would clearly disadvantage those who have a legitinate, legfttmate clatm. A recent study by the Roscoe Pound Foundation, covering the years from 1965 to 1990, the likelibood that a United States manufacturer would be assessed even one time in one punitive danage case was less than one in one thousand, and that's assessed. The judge then goes back and looks this over and in many of those cases where Nas assessed in facty in only forty percent of those cases where it was assessed did it actually end up getting awarded. So I think totally the punitive damage issue that's in here and has become so big is a total falsity as to the manufacturers, but look what it does to people. I happen to have a neighbor who happened to have bought a saw for his home, one of these bench-type from a major manufacturer I won't mention, even though that manufacturer was found guilty. Using the saw at home to cut some woodz suddenly the band snapped and took off two of his fingers. He told me the story laterr is he saw the fingers fly in the air and his -- a -- a relative of his filed suit. During that suik, they found the manufacturer might be at faulty and durkng the middle of that trialr the company that sold the saw, as well as the manufacturer, had bidden from tbem origknally a memorandum that they found literally during trial wherein they said the manufacturer and this najor retailer kneu the saw was defective, knew i: could, fact, snap off and harm someone, had already corrected the design, had manufactured a new one, withheld sending it to the store till a1l of these were sold the defective ones, knowingly defective, were sold, - Icause they didn 't want to lose *he income from *he  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 machines they had already manufactured. And the court said that's obviously a case where Whatever the punitive damages are, they're ' not enough. Now, how many days you off for loss of finger? I j don't know. But think of the wrong that that major conpany and ' major manufacturer did by putting a product on the market, leaving it there, knowing it Was defective, merely for a profit incentive. i We hear a lot about the McDonald's case. If you look at the facts of the McDonald 's case, this coffee was at a hundred and ninety degrees. Tbe average standard is considered about a hundred and sixty. They had already had seven hundred cases of people injured . because of the hot coffee. Cases filed, complaints made, McDonalds knew. This particular elderly lady suffered severe injuries to her vagina, thiqhs and buttocks. The jury said a hundred and sixty thousand Was the actual damages: but said, nWe will access punitive damages to McDonalds'' - this is a jury - ''of two days' profit from the sale of coffee only at McDonalds.'' They went and asked McDonalds, 'IWhat do you make on the sale of coffee for t?o days?'' That's the amount the jury awarded becausg they saidz ''You had seven hundred cases prior to this o1d lady. You should have known and should have done something about it.n There the judge said even that - two days' profit to McDonalds for coffee only - was too much, and they reduced the award to a much more legitimate number as to that particular lady, which proves the current system does work. Let me just take you through one or two others, or three others. Some of you may know - and this is not a case of malpractice at all - ny oldest brother happened Eo have had his leg anputated because of some blood clots. Nothing Eo do with malpractice at all. About a year ago. They tried to save it at the below-the-knee level so that he could use a prosthetic device. It didn 't work. They had to do a second surgqry. Vavq any of you ever been wëth someone who has had Eha: kind of a surgery and know What pain they go through after? Not ! i I 20  STATé OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 phantom pain. Real, real, real pain, Where they Wake up in the middle of the night screaming because they have not yet figured out how to change the nerve endings in the bottom of the stump? I have. It is a horrible situation for whlch no kind of monetary recovery could ever Work. But look at what happened a week ago in Florida. Look at what happened a Week ago in Florida where a person went in for an amputation and they cut off the wrong leg. And now what are they soin: to do? They've :ot to go back and cut off the correct leg. Is that entitled to punitive damages? Is a half a millian enough for you to lose the grong leg? Think of the difference in lifestyle to that person. One amputation is bad enough. They can get a prosthetic device; they can get a wheelchair - Whatever. Think of the lifestyle change - to because of an accidentr an act of negligence by a doctor, an act that should be severely responded to by the system - the person has noW lost two legs. Think of the total change in the life of that person. And what did the hospital do, according to this mornlng's paper? According to this morning's paper, Willy Klng: 5le Was supposed to have his qangrenous right foot removed tWo weeks ago at Tampa's University Community Hospltal. When he Woke upy instead of his rtght foot, hts left foot was taken off. Now they have issued an order. They Will write ''NO''on the correct foot in a Magic Marker so that the surgeons wl1l know not to take off the incorrect foot. That's not what 4ociety is supposed to be a1l about. That's not the Way you correct this kind of abuse. thlnk, Senator Dillard, November 8th did send a message - hope a messaqe that ls heard loud and clear in this State and in this nation. Thê lowes: EurnouE in Ehe history of this country, and 1et the message be this kind of legislation. Those of you Who stayed home, this time might be the guy in Tampa; the next piece of legislakion may be you. You better show up if you don't want this to happen again. 21  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995

PRESIDING OPFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further discussion? Senator Welch.

Thank you, Mr. President. I Was qukte surprised to hear the introduction to this bill. Three weeks ago When we debated the bills concerning education, we heard about the mandate on November 8th, 1994/ was a mandate to return authority back to local people. We were empowering people back home. That was the mandate's outcome from November 8th. And we heard that for severat Weeks. Then We took two weeks off and we came back. And guess what, folks? There's been a reinterpretation. What really happened on November 8th was, people didn't like what the people back home were doLng, particularky in jury verdicts. TWo Weeks ago people back home knew everykhing. We had to trust them. Those of us in Springfield knew nothing. We had to transfer a11 of our power back home, because they knew better. The two-week vacation made a big difference, folks. Wedre back here. And guess what? We know better than people back home who are picked for juries. Those twelve people in the community don't know enough. We know better. I suppose next week we'll have a new interpretation of the vote on November 8th, 1994. It's strange to me how the -- the changes in the interpretatian of that vote on November 8th happen to parallel the opinions of those who supported those who won on November 8th. I'm sure ik's a coincidence. Well, 1et ne just speak directly to thls bill. House Bill 20 provisions address product liability and undermine and repudtate every basic tenet of Illinois product liability law, most significantly a manufacturer's non-deleqable duty to provide a reasonably safe product. In practice, these provisions will serve to bar most if not al1 product liability suiEs brough: by knjured Illinois citizens. At the same time, these product liability provksions will condone and thereby encourage product manufacturers and suppliers to regress to the 22  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 lowest common safety denominator with respect to the product destgn, product manufacture, product Warnings and product information. As long as the manufacturers can plead ignorance and point to the backwardness of their respective industries, they will be protected from liability for a1l injuries, no matter hoN serious or how far-reaching, if they arise from defectively designed and manufactured products. Section 2-2101 comprises the definition Section of the proposed leglslation. Inclusion of the basic terms as ''manufacturer'f and ''harm'' whose definitions and parameters have evolved throuqh years of developing common law , over four hundred years of common law, cculd with reference to, quote, nclear and convincing evidence'', unquote, which has never been the degree of proof required in tort cases of any kind in Illinoisz is indicative of the dramatic revision or prcduct laN contemplated by this bill. Section 2-2102, which incorporates by reference any and a11 civil actions falling within the definition of a product liabiltty action, reveals the legislative agenda to legislatively co-opt a1l existing product liability 1aw developed over the years in the State of Illinols by scores of judicial decisions within this new statutory scheme. Perhaps the most insidious of the product liability provisions se* forth in this -- set forth in this bill ls the new Section 2-2103, which is on page 28. This Section provides that a product or product component shall be presumed to be reasonably safe so long as the aspect of the product that caused harn was specified or required by a State or federal statute or as promulgated by a State or federal regulakory body . This presumption represents a perversion of existing praduct liability laW which already permits a jury to consider a defendant's compliance with federal standards in determlning Whether or not a product is defective. The ramîfications of this provision cn product liability 1aW and ultimately upon the public safety are sure to be devastating and 23 I .  STATE 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 far-reachtng. The bottom line is that our modern American society, few if any products released into the strean of commerce are immune from some type of sta*utory or regulatory prcvislon. It must . follow that the establishment of this presumption Nill ensure Ehak nearly every product llability case will either result in a sunmary judgment ruling in favor of the defendant or a jury ënstructlon informing the jury of this presumptiony Which will undoubtedly lead a jury determination agaLnst the plaintiff. Section 2-2103's presumption of reasonable safety Will effectively deter nostr if not all, meritorious product cases filed in the State of Illinois. It is Section 2-2106, however, With its wealth of protections for product nanufacturêrs, Wlth respect Eo injuries aristng from a manufacturer's failure to Warn or provide product instruction, that evidences the greatest disregard for end user and public safety. Under this Section, a defendant is protected frcm liability for fallure to Warn so long as panphlets, booklets or other written warnings pertainlng to the risk of injury and death connected with the use of the product has been proven to be reasonably antlckpated by users orr quote, unquotey ''knowledgeable intermediariesdl. The defendant is further protected from liability so long as that information was in conformity with, quote, Hgenerally recognized standards in the industry'', unquote - standards which, for obvious reasons, will be far from stringent. This Section requirgs consumer to be more knowledgeable of the dangerous properties of a product than the manufacturer is. ln additionr despite manufacturers' greater access to information and tesElngs respectins the harms and dangers of any given product, they need only provide noEice of risks arising fron, quote, unquote, ''reasonably anticipated'' as deemed by the lndustry use of the product and need not warn of material risks obvious to a product user or a matter of common knowledge. And as if that weren't enough, thls Section reintroduces the feasibility concept, 24  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislatlve Day March 3, 1995 providing nanufacturers with the further protection of non-liability for failure to provide adequate Warnlngs or ' I instructions if kncwledge of the danger that caused the harm was : I not reasonably foreseeable. Dangers of any glven productr per I this Section, need only provide notice of risks arising from reasonably antLcipated, as deemed by the industry, use of the 1 product and need not warn of material risks obvious to a product user or a matter of common knowledqe. Clearly under the statutory scheme, the manufacturer is king, and those with the nost resources and most lnformation and least chance of actually using or beconlng injured by the product in question are protected. There is no requirenent that lnformation concerning the risks associated with the use of the product be placed upon *he product in question or be communicated in such fashion as to be reasonably certain to reach the product's end user. Here those With the feWest resources and the least tnformation and not ability to negoEiate a safer alternative will be the ones forced to beat the costs of products liability in terms of pain, suffering and death. Sectlon 2-21.6.5 protects defendants from liability for any harm arislng from a product containing an inherent characteristic that cannot be elininated without substantially compromlsing the product's usefulness or desirability. This provision, coupled with the weak protection afforded Illinois consumers under the precedtng product liability provision leaves consumers and product end users vulnerable to injury by any range of inherently dangerous products, such as Eobacco, asbestos and firearms, with no remedy at law. At a time When other states are pursuing cases against tobacco manufacturers to protect their citizens, instead you are protecting the tobacco lobby against the citizens of Illinois. Section 2-2107, the standards defense as a bar to punitive damages, effectively bars punttive damage awards in a1l producE liability actions ln Illlnois unless the plaintiffs meet ' 25  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3e 1995 *he ludicrously impossible standard of proving by, quote, ''clear and convincing evidencel', unquote, that the conduct of the manufacturer or seller rose to the near criminal level of intentionally withholding or misrepresenting lnformation to the relevant federal or State legislative or regulatory agency that could have resulted in a changed decision relative to the 1aW or standard applicable to the product in question. As if that were not preclusive enough thcughr the provision further provides punitive damages will be barred against any defendant who acted in compliance wlth standards set forth in applicable federal or State statutes or regulations. Accordingly, this seemingly all-encompasslng punitive damage bar denies Illinois consumers full protection under Ehe law while constituting yet another incentive for manufacturers to adopt a regressive or, in nany cases, a reckless approach With respect to product and consumer safety. Thank you.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further discussion? Senator Palmer.

Thank you, Mr. Presldent. To the bill, with regard to jury instruction. House Dill 20 creates potentially dangerous problems when it enables the judge to tell the jury that awards for compensatory and punitive damages are not taxable to the plaintiff. Currently a judge cannot legally tell the jury that the wronqdoer gets a credit in the amount of money paid to the plalntiff by virtue of the fact that the plalntiff pays no taxes on the juryls award. House Bill 20 Would do: indirectly, what the court cannot now do. If a judge can tell the jury that the plaintiff will not be taxed on any award, a judge should also be able to tell the jury that the Wrongdoer uill gêt a tax credit for the award and that the wrongdoers insurer will pay the award, not the wrongdoer. Furthermore, the defense in a personal injury 26  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 cases will add expense, complexity and confusion to the case by adding another expert - a certlfied public accountant - who would inform the jury on tax laws that would normally affect earned income, not a jury award. Cunbersone and unnecessary variables come into play if a jury acts on Ehe inference that it should reduce a tax-exempt verdict by the amount the plaintiff would have paid in taxes. The jury would have to be told the pgrcent of attorneys' fees and the amount of litigation expenses which should be deducted from the gross verdict to equate a net taxable award to the plaintiff, and the jury would then need to detêrmine *he proper tax bracket ln which the amount of money they seek to award minus the deductions would fall. The jury instruction in tort cases regarding taxability of damages is lnadvisable and unworkable. It would cause addltional disputes between opposing attorneys, and trial court judges would be burdened with the complex responsibility of determining the true tax impact on any such award. In effect, this type of jury lnstruction would force the judge to become a part-time TRS revenue auditor, reviewing tax laws and personal income tax returns. The impact on the jury is equally undesirable. Such a jury instruction would likely cause the jury to believe it must compute damages based on applicable combined federal.and State tax rates. The jury may incorrectly infer that itslruling on damages should be increased by costs of litigatiqn and related expenses. The bottom line is that any instruction to the jury on the taxability of compensatory or punitive damages will either directly or by inference interject into the deliberaEion process criteria and considerations which are inappropriate, speculative and/or incapable of review. House B11l 20 also says the court shall not inform or instruet the jury concerning eaps on the anount of noneconomic or punitive damages that are recoverable. In cataskrophic cases where extensive medical bills, both past and projected, exist along with the loss  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 1 of earning capacity, a defense aktorney will be given a distinct advantage in arguing cases in which *he jury is not told of caps on the disability, pain, suffering and other noneccnomic losses. The distinct advantage is .that the defense will vigorously attack any future care or medical needs of the victimr even though they may be conservative and/or an under -- understatement of the actual costs in the future. Currently, defense attorneys rarely challenge medical expenses, past or future. Rather, they challenge noneconomic damages. However, if a jury is not told about caps on noneconomic damages, the defense attorney: to appear reasonable, Will tell the jury that the plaintiff has inflated future medical expenses but has suffered terrible pain, terrible disability, and the attorney will tell the jury that Ehey should give whatever they feel is just and right with regard to these noneconomic damaqes. Defense attorneys know that most jurors will be inclined to accept this reduced estlmate of future medical costs and make up for the cuts of eccnomic costs by awarding larqer amounts for noneconomic damages, such as pain, suffering and disabillty. Under the proposed nondisclosure of the caps on noneconomic damages, the plaintiff's attorney cannot reveal to the jury khe insincerity and dishonesty of the defendant's argunent because he cannot tell the jury that the noneconomic damage ls capped. If juries are misinformed, their awards will be reduced. Eventually, when the reduced award is depleted due to the cost of future medical bills, the vtetëms will likely be forced to turn to public aid to pay thêir medical bllls. Laskly, House Btll 20 says a court should not inform or instruct a jury that the defendant should be found not liable if the jury determines that the victim was at least fifty percent responsible for the cause of the injury or damage for which a recovery award is sousht. The problem is this: If a jury does not know that the defendant Will be completely absolved of any responsibility to pay for damages, it 28  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMSLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 I will cause jurors to believe that they are glving recovering to thevictimwhen,infact,thevictimisleaving court without a 1 penny - the effect of its own verdict being hidden from the jury. The very definition of a jury is a group of people sworn .to hear the evidence and inquire into the facts in a law case and to give a decision in accordance wtth their findings. This Legislature should be ashamed of the passage of any bill that requires a judge to 1ie to a jury and blatantly conceal the true effect of their verdict.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further discussion? Senator Severns.

Thank you, Mr. Presidentr Members of the Senate. 1 have with me today a book that perhaps some of ycu have seeny The Death of Common Sense. Seems like it migh: be too appropriate in this Chanber and certainly on this bill today. Where is the insurance industry in this debate, and why are they not being held accountable? One of the stated reasons for the proposed legislation is to assist in keeping the costs of liability lnsurance premiums from rising. In the reform proposals before the General Assemblyr purportedly aimed at a statewide crisis in liability insurance, there is nothing - absolu*ely nothing - which would act to cap insurance premiums. Because there is nothing in the proposed legislation whlch gces dlrectly to the heart of the alleged crisis in liability insurance premlums, changes such as the proposed damage caps wl1l be lneffective in addressing this problem without the necessary changes in the insurance industry as well. Victims should not suffer additional injustice under damage caps, while tnsurance companies' profits continue to grow larger. A cap on llability insurance premiums should be placed on a1l liability insurance policies gritten in Illinois. For example, insurance underwriters would not be able to charge a premium for a 29  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 policy that exceeds the premiun applicable to the policy on March 1sE, 1995. Thereaftery annual increases Would not be allowed to exceed *he consumer price index durinq the preceding calendar year. This cap would ensure that consumers would not continue to pay increasing insurance preniuns while potentially being capped by a court or in a settlenent. Oftentimes, after a person is injured by a product or on the job, he or she is no longer able to Work at his or her former occupation. Besides lost wagese the victlm often loses family health care coverage. Chlldren and spouses are thus also made a victim of the injury. After the injured person loses group health care coveragey he or she has little choice but to attempt to obtain individual health care coverage on the open market. The victim often finds that the cost of such a policy is prohibiklve and either pays the exorbitant prices or dogs not provide coverage for his or her dependents. With thfrty-five million Americans currently without health care: we should not be passing leglslation to add to this crisis. In addition, with the prospect of caps: having to purchase health care insurance coverage will take a greater percentage of the victim's final judgement or se*tlement. The practice of denytng insurance coverage to dependents of an injured worker or consumer based on the claims made by the injured person is a very real problem. It is necessary and it is unfair. Children and nonworking spouses of victims sbould not be punished because they are dependents of victims and can no longer obtain group health insurance coverage that was terminated through no fault of their own. The prohibition of dlscriminakion insurance coverage to dependents of injured workers or consumers should have been included in this bill to protect health care costs for the victlm and his or her family. Thank you.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further dtscusskon? Senator del Valle. 30  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 SENATOR dEL VALLE: Thank you, Mr. President. House Bill 20 chanqes the law regarding a tort feasor action for contribution against the plaintiff's employer. This change will essentially extinguish most civil actions for work-related injuries. It is supposed to be a codification of existing law: as cited in Kotecki versus Cyclops Weldlng Corporation, but in actualityr it overrules this Illinois Supreme Court decision. A defendant's liability is discounted by both. WiEh other proposed reformsr a plaintiff's recovery in work-related injuries would be reduced three times. Initially, his own negligence Will offset Pntitlement to recovery. Then tbe recovery is further reduced by factoring his employer's negligence. Even after that reduction, the plaintiff must still repay his employer's workers' compensation lien. Consider the simplest case: A jury awards the plaintiff five hundred thousand dcllars in damages and finds that the defendanE the plaintiff's employer are each fifty percent at fault. Because tort feasors will no longer be jointly liable as a result of this legislation: the defendant in this case would only be liable for his percentase of the damases. Thus: of the five-hundred-thousand-dollar verdict, the defendant would only have to pay fifty percent, or two hundred thousand dollars. But the anendnent to the Joint Tork Feasor Contrlbution Act eliminates even that liability. The defendant, as a result of the proposed change in the law , cbtains a credit against his liability based upon the employer's liability. Therefcre, the defendant's liability drops to nothing. Two hundred and fifty thousand minus a credit of two hundred and fifty thousand equals zero. A similar injustice arises when a plaintiff's negligence plus his employer's equals or exceeds fifty percent. Take the same verdict of five hundred thousand. Assume the plaintïff was ten percent negliçent, the defendant fifty percent negligent, and *he employer forty 31  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 1 percent. The five hundred thousand would first be reduced by the I I plaintiffss comparative fault. The reduction amounts to fifty thousand, as a result of multiplying five hundred thousand by ten percent. The defendant is responsible for two hundred and fifty thousand, by multiplying five hundred thousand times fifty percent, but then gets a credit of two hundred thousand. Thus, the defendant, Wh- o is nost responsible for the injury, is liable for only fifty thousand, whicb is arrived at by subtracting the two hundred and fkfty from two hundred. This represents only twenty percent of the defendant's fair share or liability and only ten percent of the platntiff's true damages. In both of the examples I have mentëoned: the plaintiff's damage Were set at five hundred thousand. In both: the defendant's fault was assumed to be fifty percent; yet, the defendant's ultimate liabilkty ranged between zero and fifty thousand. This liability changed according to an irrelevant variable: the amount of fault attributable to the plaintiff's employer. Yet When a defendant and enployer are equally responslble for an accldent that injures an innocent plaintiff, that plalntiff recovers nothing . This change to the 1aW is a radical departure from existing law. 1* is no* fair. It is not reform. It ls nonsense. It only serves to protect negligent wrongdoers from their actions at the expense of the working people of Illinois. The proposed changes to Section 5 of the Contribution Act treat nedical malpractice actlons differently from any other action. This separate treatment is special legislatlon. The changes are proposed -- that changes tha: are proposed in this bill are contrary to public policy, as articulated by *he Illinols supreme Court ln Laue versus Leifheit. The Court said, ''In addition to the fact that the statutory lanquage of Section 5 clearly requires the flling of an action for contribution in the orlginal action, there are strong public policy reasons for such a requlrement. One jury should decide 32  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legtslative Day March 3, 1995 both the liability to the plaintiff and the percentages of liability among the defendants so as to avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits in an already crowded court system and the possibility of inconsistent verdicts. Requiring the parties to litigate the matter in one suit will also save money and attorneys' feesm'' This bill has rejected the Court's reasoning. Instead, the bill has declared one of its purposes is to reduce the frequency of civil claims. The proposed changes to Section 5 promote no such reducticn. They, in fact, encourage more suits with defendants suing defendants, even after the plalntlff's case is over.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further discussion? Senator Molaro.

Thank you, Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. Senate Isic> Bill 20 considers repealing the doctrine joint liability. The doctrine of joint liability allows victims to recover their rightful damages from those responsible for their injuries. Any person or corporation who could have prevented the victim's injury, who is found to be more than tkenty-five percen: at fault: is jointly responsible. The doctrine encourages people to be katchful for the health and safety of others and to act reasonably to prevent others from being hurt by Eheir negligence. The rule does not allow victlms to recover from injuries for khich they are the primary cause. As the eminent U.S. Supreme Court Justice Cardozo said, ''One gullty defendant whose conduct was, by itselfr sufflcient to cause an injury cannot avoid responslbility for the victim's injuries by hiding behind the skirts of another's guilt.'' An example would be if a hospltal doing a background check on a man or a doctor, errs or doesn't do it, and they hire some neurosurgeon who's not even a neurosurgeon. He performs this surgery half drunk and terribly and causes injuries that a jury comes back and says, 'You do have injures of three million 33  STATE 0P ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 dollarsz' but they say that the hospital's only thirty percent at I fault, and the charade doctor is seventy percent at fault. If the doctor is broke and has no money, two mlllion dollars of Which ! cannot be recovered -- if this law passes, cannot be recovered by the victim because the hospital's only on the hook for Ehirty percenk. So that means that two million dollars is either going to be borne by the victim or borne by the hospital. This law says it's the victim that should lose, not the other wronçdoer. It protects the Wrongdoer and hurts the victim. LeE me make a couple other comments, quickly. When we talk about tort law , it Was designed to make victims whole, so if a wrongdoer goes out and hurts sonebody or he causes injury, they would nake him whole. Wè're in the Senate saying today if this passes, you can :et al1 your economic damages recovered. Get your lost wages. Wedll pay for ycur medical bill, but the noneconomic damages Ne're going to cap at five hundred thousand. And I know one of my colleagues will speak more to it. But you know what the stuff of noneconomic injuries are? Disfigurement, blindness, infertility, loss of a loved one, chronic pain, lifetime sufferingy paralysis, wheelchair confinement. These are the things that we care nost abaut. These are the things that is the American fiber. So if someone comes out and causes these injuries... And what are they worth? Million? Four million? Ten billion? We lre going to say we're going to ca9 it at five hundred thousand dollars. And for what reason? Why are we dolng this? Why are we putting a cap? To save money on insurance policiesr so dcctors could pay twenty-five thousand dollars less on their malpractice? So, you're telling that if sone doctor's making three hundred thousand dollars and by this passage we save him twenty-five thousand dollars, he's going to pass *his on to his patients? He 's going to take it home. This isn't goin: to help America or the State of Illinois. The GenaEe -- this is what I thought when I came to the Senate: We I 34  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAA SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day Marcb 1995 have a bicaneral Legislature. We have a House of Representatives that sent this over. They are there for their little constituency that's carved out, and they are there for their party. So they come and send stuff here thak is very self-serving for their little constituency. That's Who they represent. We are to be the last bastion. We are supposed to represent the entire Skate of Illinoisr not merely the Republican or the Democratic Party, not merely a a likele constituency. We're supposed to be beyond that. This House -- this this part of the Legislature is turning into a mini House of Representative. There's no need for Senators to be here if we're going to be in loekstep as Democrats or Republican. We lre supposed to be deliberative. We 're supposed to take our time. We're supposed to look at Ehis and not have thirty-three Republican green llghts and twenty-eight Republican <sic> red lights. If wedre qoing to do Ehat on every major issue that comes before us, we might as Well disband and become a mini House of Representatives. Let them do it. If we're going Eo just bllndly follow Leadership on major issues, we might as well just 1et Senator Philip and Senator Jones vote. Give him one and a half and give Senator Jones one so they can uin the issues. What's the sense of a1l -- all of us being here? The last thing want to say and I uant to bring to your attention: This is the Ford Pinto memo that went out in 1973. And when that Went out, what they were deciding is that the governgent came back and said: These Pintos - you're going to be found liable fcr a11 these deaths and injuries: Fordy and it's going to be easy to prove. Well, Ford executives came baek with the memo, and the memo said: Welly over the next Ewo years, we'll bave a hundred and eighty burn deaehs caused by the Pinto and the Ford trucks, hundred and eiqhty serious burn injuries, and we're going to have twenty-one hundred burned vehicles. And they figured outr when they add noneconomic and economic injuries, that they're going to pay tWc 35  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 hundred thousand dollars per death and about seventy thousand dollars per injury. And when they figured it outy they said: When we settle a11 these lawsuits, if we donft fix the cars, it's going to cost us forty-nine million dollars. But if we fix.eleven dollars per car, l.5 million trucks and -- and about 1.11 million cars, itlll cost us a hundred and thirty-seven million. So they decided not to f1x the cars and trucks 'cause it was cheaper to let these people die, get maimed and injured than it was to fix the cars and trucks. The only way to stop this is vith punitive damages and no caps so Ehese people know that they're going to pay. Thatis the only thing they understand. And by doing this today, youdre going to send every boardroom across Illinois starting to sit there and say, HWait a second. It may be eheaper for us to let these people get injured and die than it will to fix our products.'' And T don'e khink ve want to do that. Thank you.

PRZSIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further discussion? Senator Trotter.

Thank you very much, Mr. Presidentr Members of the Senate. The last two weeks that we Were not down here in Springfield, at the request of the Democratic Minority, I co-chaired a task force on worker safety, and we had heartngs in two cities of this great State, in Rock Island and the City of Chicago. Now, granted that's not a1l over the State, but in those two hearings, we met with a good cross-section of individuals fron this State. We met with doctors. We heard from lawyers. We heard from plalntlffs, also from the corporate attorneys as well. We heard from Workerg, and we heard from those worklrs uho cannot work any longer because of injuries that they've sustained due to accidents on the job. And out of that, not once did I hear this clarion call that we have to make these ktnd of changes in our present laws. One of the things that we fre talklng abou: ghanging in Scuse Bi1l 20 is 36  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 I ; creating a Code of Clvll Procedure Section 2-624. And the purpose : of this Section of House Bill 20 is to overrule the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Gilbert versus Sycamore Hospital: which defined and affirmed in 1aw on ostensible or apparent agency. Effectively abolishing Gilbert would not only be unwise and unwarranted, but it would blatantly usurp the authority of our Supreme Court. Apparent asency is the equitable principle of 1aw most commonly seen ln the situatlon where a patient comes to an emergency room and is treated by emergency raom physicians. Many hospitals contract out for emergency room physicians, and the physicians Who work in emergency rooms are nat the direct employees of the hospital. In the typical case, the patient does not know and is not informed of the emergency room physlcian providing their care that they are not employees of the hospital. If the emergency room physician is negligent and causes death or serious injury to the patient, often the suit will be filed only agains: the hospikal and the physician, unless the patient happens to know that some other entity actually employs the physician. Over the last thirty years, developing case 1aw has recognized that hospitals are not only important health care providers in our community, bu* they lre also b1g business. Hospitals advertise and promote the avallability of their service, including emergency room care. They should be held responsible for the conduct of physicians Who provide the basic services that they market, sueh as emergency room care and radiologyr ic -- if negligence in conduct causes serious injury or death. The Illinois Supreme Court examined the entire doctrine of ostensible and apparent agency in the case of Gilbert vetsus Sycamore Hospital. It ruled that there -- that where a patient relies on an institution to provide services like emergency roon care, with no indication from that institution that those services are provided bv an lntermediary, the hospital should be held responsible for doctor 37  STATE OP ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Leqislativg Day March 3, 1995 negligence. If the citizens of Illinois go to a hospital because of thetr trust in that institutionr that lnstitutlon should be held responslble for those pakients. The decision of the Supreme Court in Gilbert was correct, and the portion of House Bill 20, which abolishes Gilbert, should be defeated. This bill is not a perfect bill. We should not be voting on it today. Thank you. END OF TAPE TAPE 2 PRESIDING OFFICER: (EENATOR WEAVER) : Further discussion? Senator Garcia. SENATOR GARCIA : Thank you, Mr. President and Members of this Honorable Bcdy. As someone Who represents an overWhelmingly blue-collar and pink-collar working-class communityr I feel compelled to rise here this afternoon to point out hoW House Bill 20 will impact, : dramaeically, our rights to privacy, confidentiality, and Will jeopardtze relationships between attorneysr patients, plaintiffs, ( and health care professionals. House Bill 20 requires every plaintiff to sign a consent form from which -- which will allow ' defense counsel to obtaln any and a11 prior medlcal records and also authorizes secret conversations between treating doctors and defense counsel. This provision is a clear violation of the conskitukional right to privacy as stated in Article Ir Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution. This provision also violates Article II, Section 1 and Article VI, Section 1, by encroaching upon the Supreme Court's authority to promulgate procedural rules for civil trial. The requirement that a plaintiff sign a consent 38  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 of release of a11 records ls particularly galling. This means, for example, that a woman wha breaks an arm in an auto accident will be required to sign a consent for the disclosure of gynecological, psychological and psychiatric recordsy even though the records are not in any way relevant to her broken arm . This porEion of the bill overturns scores of cases that hold that a defendant is not entitled to inquire into unrelated injuries and medical conditions and many other cases that prevent a defendant from learnln: any information abouk psychological or psychiatric treatment: unless the plaintiff's mental condition is an issue in the case. Unbelievable as it seems, there is not a provision that allows a judge to prevent a fishin: expedition into irrelevant and extremely private medical records. The Petrillo Ruler as it is known *o attorneys - and I'm only a paralegal - stems from a 1986 opinion of the First District Appellate Court in Which a defense atkorney appealed from a krial judge's ruling that barred any private conversaticns between the defense attorney and one of plaintiff's treating physicians. The court held that such conversations violated the physician-patient privilege and were contrary to the public policy of this State. The court also found that the defense attorney could not demonstrate that such an order prevented him from obtaining a11 relevant information through conventlonal court-supervlsed discovery proceedings. Since the 1986 opinion, the Petrillo Rule has been adopted in more than twelve states, b0th in case 1aw and by statute. It has been reviewed on more than thirty occasions by a11 of the district appellate courts of this State, and the U .S. Supreme Court refused to hear the defense lawyer's appeal from the appellate court ruling. The need for the Rule can be illustrated by reference to one appellate court ease. In Nastasi versus United Mine Workers, plaintiff was lnjured ln a work accidenE and, subsequently, a par: of his leg was anputated. He filed a medical malpractice suit 39 i STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 against the United Mine Workersl Hospital and his physician, arguing that their delay in treatment of a vascular injury 1ed to the amputation. H1s subsequent treating physicianr the doctor who performed *he amputation surgery, testlfied ln a dlscovery deposition that earlier recognition of the vascular injury would have spared the plalntiff the amputation. After the deposition, however, the defense attorney improperly comnunicated With the physician and told the doctor what the defendant's theory of defense was and supplied the witness with the defendant's expert depasitian. Thls conduct occurred four years after the Petrillo Opinion. Not surprisingly, when the witness testifled at the trial, he changed his opinion and said that earlier treatnent would not have made any difference. The appellate court sanctioned the defense attorney and barred the witness from testifying ak trial, but the damage had been done. Plaintiff's treating doctor had been turned against his patient, and the patienk 's lawsuit was lost. This case reminds us that the defense bar continues to abuse this Rule. If this provision of House Bill 20 passes, one can surely predict that many other treating physicians Will be corrupted by private conversations With their patient's adversary. This would represent a decidedly unfair, improper and unethical change in the handling of actions against health care professionals, and I would urge a vote against House Bill 20. Thank you, Mr. Presldent. PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further discussion? Senator Cullerton. SENATOR CULLERTON: Thank you, Mr. Presidgnt, Menbers of the Senate. The centerpiece of this so-called tort reform legislatlon is a flve-hundred-Ehousand-dollar liml: on a injured persons recovery for pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and loss of society of a loved one in a wrongful death case. These elements 40  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SZNATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 of damage have been dubbed ''noneconomic damages''. So under the law, which has been in place for hundreds of years, these are no less important than economic damages, such as medical expenses and lost wages. But the bill, with its caps on noneconomic damages, provides for full recovery of *he money Ehat an lnjured person loses but puts a limit of five hundred thousand dollars on the amount a person can recover for the suffering he endures. This is completely arbltrary limit on what tt means to be blinded: to have a severed spinal cord or to be a child born with brain damage that will never see, or hear: or have intellectual functioning above that of a one-year-old. In short, this bill allows full compensation for the loss of the ability to work but limits compensation for loss of the ability to Walk. A majcrity of state suprene courts, including our cwn Illlnois Supreme Court: hold that statutes limiting jury damages' awards are unconstitutional. The General Assembly has already passed caps. In 1976, *he Supreme Court of Illlnoisy in the case of Wright versus Central Dupage Hospital, held that a statute limiting recovery in medical malpractice cases of five hundred thousand dollars was arbitrary and constituted a special 1aw in violation of Article IV, Section 13, and that Section states: ''The General Assembly shall pass no special or local 1aw Nhen a general 1aw is or can be made applicable.'' In that case: the General Assembly passed a provision which said the maximum recovery on account of lnjuries by reason of medical, hospital or other healing art malpraetlce shall be five hundred thousand dollars. Proponents then, as now, asserted that the cap was tnposed because of an tnsurance crisis and the ever-increasing number of mgdical malpracEice clalms. The court found that such a provision was unfair to serlously injured vletims of medlcal malpractice because the burden of the legislative effort fell exclusively on those most unfortunate vlctims who needed financial protection the most. The cap we're 41  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legvslattve Day March 1995 votùng on today is no different than the cap the Supreme Courk struck dogn in 1976. It's speclal legislation. It only affects cases involving bodily injuryy death or physical damage to property based on negligence or product llability. No other types of cases are singled out here, and this singling out indicates that this class is somehow not as important or is worth less than a breach-of-contract case/ or a commercial case, or any other class of cases that are not subject to an arbitrary cap. Statutes limiting noneconomic damages also violate the equal protection provisions of the Illinois and Federal Constitution, because the effect of these laws is to unfairly discriminate against those victims that are the most seriously lnjured by the negligence of another. At the Constltutional Convention in 1970, Article 1, Section 2 of our Constitution advanced the concepE of fairness and prohibitei laws that would inhibit the freedom of citizens based on sone unreasonable categorization. That Section states that no person shall be deprived of lifer or libertye or property without due process of law or be denied the equal protection of the laws. Before the Constitutlonal Convention of 1970, the Illinois Constitution had no such provision. During debate, they explained that this concept of fairness, equivalent to the equal protection in the Federal Constitution, ought to be included in the Illinols Constitution. Objective evldence and common sense indicates that a statute kimiting noneconomic dapages will have a disproportionate inpact on our most vulnerable citizens: children, the disabled, honemakers, and pregnant women - just to name a few . These citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. The kind of cases which noves jurles to award over a half a million dollars a11 involve hotrible tnjuries: such as death, brain danage, spinal cord injuries, amputa*iony severe burns and Erauma causing permanent injuries. Caps will no* affect injured persons who have injurles which do not result in serious 42  STATE 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 permanent injury. Those klnd of cases command settlement and jury awards much less than flve hundred thousand dollars and Would never be affected by the cap. The people, and Ehe only people, Who will be affected by caps on recovery are the people who.suffer the most serious lnjuries. These are the people whose injuries are profound, permanent and either literally take the -- their life or obliterate their abillty to live as they had before. And if that's not bad enough, the caps will have a disproportionate affect on anyone who doesnft work, who nakes a lower salary, such as women and children. Recovery for economic damages is not eapped. Of course, any recovery for past medical expenses, by the way: goes to the -- not to the plaintiff, but to the hea1th insurance company that paid the medical bills in the firse place. If a person's thirty-five years old and they're blinded by negligence, if that person was not working before the injuryv the most he will get beyond past and future medical expenses is this five-hundred-thousand-dollar limit for his pain and h1s disability; however, a person with the very same injury/ Who is employed, will be able to recover his lost future earnings, Which could be in the millions. short, the award for lost earnings full and fair; the award for disability and disfigurement is not. The legislation does not further a legitimate State interest. It deprives the nost deserving victims of due process. There's another constltutional Section which is vtolated. Section l2, Article I of the Illinois Constitutlon says that every person shall find a certain remedy in *he laws for a1L knjuries and wrongs which are received to his person, privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain jusElce by law, freely, completely, and promptly. This Sectton provides that an injured parby will receive a complete remedy for al1 injuries. A statute arbitrarily limitinq the amount of compensation an injured party may recovgr obviously violates the injured party's right to a full and 43  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 complete recovery. a person is a victim/ they receive a jury verdict for a hundred or -- or a million dollars for a noneconomic damage, they have not received a constitutional redress of those injuries if *he General Assembly - we - tekl the jury that the recovery has to be only five hundred thousand. If we can constitutionally cap the recovery at five hundred thousand, there's no reason why it couldn't cap the recovery at some other figure. We could pick a hundred thousand, or a thousand, or a dollar. This legislation does not provide an alternatlve remedy for -- or commiserate benefit. essence, it limlts an award -- the limits on award take away a constitutional rtght from a plaintiff without givin: him anything back in return. It violates a victim's rights to open courts and to access to the courts. It also affects the right to a trial by jury. Article Section 13 of the Illinols Constitution provides the right of *rial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate. The 1970 Const1tutiona1 Conventlon deleqates that drafted this provision intended strict adherence to the language, as proven by the many anendments which failed because of the fear that the anendments might geaken or take away the right to a trial by jury in civil and criminal cases. Currently Illinoisz a civil plaintiff has the opportunity and right to have their claim heard by a jury of his peers. This is the only country in the world that affords such a right in civil cases, if the plaintiff so desires. Once the claims of the plaintiff have been tried, the jury, as it sees wl11 award damages to the plalntiff on a case-by-case basis. Illinois has always relfed upon Ehe abilktfes of its cktkzen jurcrs and the judiciary with the power of remittiturz which allows tbe judge to reduce awards to fairly and accuraEely assure the fairness of jury awards. So a statute capping noneconomic damages violates *he his*orical right to trial by jury by placing an arbitrary and unreasonable limit on the amount of damages a 44  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH CENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legtslatëve Day March 3, 1995 jury may award. Such a statute invades the province of the jury. you have a seven-year-old child who 's in an automobile crash caused by a careless truck driver or a drunk driver, an explosion occurs, the cblld suffers third-degree burns over eighky percent of her body and then is hospltalized and endures treatment for burns for six months and then dles of complications, this were your child, would you choose to decide what -- who would you choose to decide what award was reasonable? Should it be the special interests that are pushing this bill or an American jury? It viola*es the Constitution in other respects. W1l1 just briefly list themr along with the factual violation. It viclates Article 1, Section l8, by denying equal protection of the laws on account of gender. It violates Article II, Section 1 and 6 Isic> - - Secticns 1, 9 and 16 where the leglslative and executive branches are entitled to exercising powers properly belonging to the judicial branch and Article Section 6, by invading the privacy, once secured, by the patient privilege -- physician privilege. But there's one other Section in this bill if you're not on the Judlciary Committee, maybe you're not aware of I Want to bring to your attentlon because this important: and think it's something which we should probably address later on in the Session. There's a provision in this bill that kas slipped into the bill over in the House that protects negligent lawyers - not neqligent doctors. In 1990, I was the House sponsor of a bill that atlowed for a statute of limitation for lauyers. I thought was fair. There Was no limitation before that, and we said that you musE sue your negligent lawyer two years after you knew or you should have known that an injury took place: but in either casez no -- no longer than six years. After six years, youpre out. Bu* we said there should be one exception: If a lawyer drafts a Will negligentlyr if he messes up, the injury doesn't occur until after that client of that 45  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3e 1995 lawyer diesr and then it's the heirs, who -- who should have got something under the w111 but who didn't, who are the victlms. You know, the will is put in a safety deposit box, and the future lnjured partles don't even have the right ko know what's ln there. This bill that wetre votkng on changes that law. It takes that exception for wills out, so that now, s1x years after a will has been drafted, that's Even lf it was done negligently, you cannot bring a lawsuit against that lawyer. So if your will gives a11 your money to your daughter who loved you and who stood by you and nursed you health and nothing to the daughter who abandoned you and left you, after you die, sure enough they both show up; the Will, as long as it's over six years old, the bad daughter will get half of your money, even though you intended her to get notbing. Now why do some lawyers want to change thls? suspect that has something do With lawyers' nalpracticg insurance premiums. We a11 pay it. A11 of us lawyers pay malpractice insurance premiums. But if Ne can pass a 1aw that lets negligent lawyers off the hookr then maybe our premiums might go down. But in the neantime, somebody in your district may find out that instead of the kids inherlting the farm, al1 goes to somebody else because some negliqent lawyer messed up . And by you voting for this bill, you 're taking away their rlght to sue that lawyer for negligence. Now we tried to amend this Section out in the Judiciary Committee. I offered an amendment to do so. But that would have requlred if We had passed the amendment, that the bill would go back to the House of Representatives, and maybe some SEate Representattve who was over therey who once was with the doctors, then he swi*ched to *he lawyers, then he switched back ko the doctors might sWitch back to the lawyers again. We uouldn't wan: to have that to happen. So we 'll take care of it by filing a trailer bill. So wedre going to vote on a trailer bill to follow this. The only thing I can tell you is: though, that this Section 46  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislakive Day March 3r 1995 is in here as part of a deal. Somebody made a deal in the House: ''Put this :ecEion 1n, and 1'11 vate for the bi1l.'' S5 don't think we can guarantee by passing a out of the Senate that a trailer bill is going to be part -- is going Eo pass over in the Hcuse. truly believe that this bill Will be found unconstitutional and we will then again be back here talklng about these issues. When we come backy I've got an idea . Instead of having the trial lawyers and the doctors and the business interests, who spend so much money on our campalgns writing this bill, why don't we do somethin: novel? Why donft we have some of us - ehe legislators - s1t down and negotiate and regain the power that the people who voted for us thouqht that we had . Thank you.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further discussion? Senator Bowles.

Thank you, Mr. President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. The current civil justice system consistently and fairly conpensates injury victins as determined by the facts and evidence of each case, rather than utilizing an unreasonable and arbitrary predetermination. The Illinois civil justiee system, through its citizen jurors, and the judicial branch, with its use of its power of remit*itur when necessaryr fairly and accurately assures the fairness of jury awards. The available evidence shows EhaE ln recent years there has been no significant increase in the average size of the verdicts nor has eheir been any significan: increase in the percentage of verdicts for injured cielzens; thereforeg there is no plausible reason Eo suqgesE Ehat the juries in Illinois are out of control or that the civil justice system is ln need of drastic change. An American College of Physlciansf study concluded that inappropriate and unjustified malpractice awards are uncommon and that the deqree of physician negligence, not the degree of patient injury, was most closely correlated to the size  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY RZGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 of the awards. The existing public policy in Illinois is that liability for damages shall be based on fault and that Where provenr that wrongdoers shall be held fully accountable for a11 . harms caused. An innccenE plaintiff should not be required to . bear the risk of non-collection when one or more of the Wrongdoers is unable Eo pay its proporticnate share of the damages. The burden of the shortfall in collection has been placed on the wrongdoers ln Illinois common 1aw for more than one century. Illinois eommon 1aw has always recognized that noneconomic losses : are no less important than out-of-pocket expenses. It has always been the public policy of the State of Illinois khat an injured party is entitled to fair and complete compensation for all losses suffered by the wrongful act of another, including noneconomic lasses. The consistent application of existing jurisprudence provides individualized, fair and complete damage awards which are i just and benefit al1 parties and society. There ls more than a century of jurisprudence in Illinois for courts to rely upon in assessing and reviewing noneconomic damages. Noneconomic damages are individualized and depend entirely on the facts and evidence presented to a trier-of-fact trial subject tc trial: the appellate and the suprene court review. The judicial branch is empowered, too, and is perfectly capable of monitoring and i controlling jury verdicts Which may be perceived as excessive. Medical malpractice continues to be a signlficant factor ln producing injury and death because the medical profession fails to ensure quality medical care. Medical malpractice claims nore llves than motor vehlcle accidents, falls, drowningsz fires, chokingr ftrearns and poisons combined. According Eo a Harvard research teamz medical malpractice claims over eighty thousand American llves each year. A study of over twenty-flve thousand medical malpractice cases filed in Cook County over a fourteen-year period found that two percent of *he physicians wece 48  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 defendants in thirty-six percene of *he medical negligent litigation; yet, only fourteen doctors' licenses were revoked or suspended by the State for malpractice or incompetence from January 1974 to September 1986. Amerlcans are more than twice as likely to die at the hands of a negligent doctor as an automobile crash. According to Dcctor Arnold Relman, editor in chief eneritus of the New England Journal of Medicine, twenty thousand physicians, for one reason or another, probably ought not to be practicing medicine. They are either alcoholics, drug addicts, senile, criminals or simply incompetent physicians. The advantage of the tort system is that it provides a continual, ongoing system of regulation by incentives, and it does not rely on enforcement by the medical profession, which ltke any other profession, is notoriously reluctant to policg its own members. It is sad but true that many physicians practice more carefully than they did in the past because they have an eye on the potential litigant. If the courts and insurance companies, in the fear of malpractice: become the most tmportant dlscipltnary weapon in nedicine, distasteful as the idea may be to physiciansr so be The judiciary balances the rights of injured persons and legitlmate protectlons for wrongdoers with the goal of achieving justice in every case. The majority of states, tncluding Iowa and Kentucky, which border Illinois, do not impose arbitrary and unreasonable limits on noneconomic damages. There is no scientific basls fcr concluding that damages for pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, loss of society, loss of consortium of the injured party are any more difficult for the jury to deEermine than those for economic loss. Tort cases comprise a small fraction of a11 the civkl cases filed in Illinois. Business contract disputes outnumber personal injury suits by more than seven to one, according to data ln the annual report of the Administrative Office of thê Illinois Court of 1992. Only five percent of the 49  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 civil cases are tort cases. Business litigation, often businesses suing other businesses, and not injured people suing for damages in tort, comprlses one of the fastest-growing segments of civil case filings. In fact,. contract disputes account for fifty percent of a11 civil cases filed annually in Ehe federal courEs between 1985 and 1991. No proponent of civil justice reform has ever suggested that limits af any kind of that kind of case that have truly multiplied in recent years: business suing business. Thank you.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further discussion? Senator Shadid.

Thank you, Mr. President: fellow Members of the Senate. The available objective evidence clearly demonstrates that the number of tort filings in Illinois has decreased in the last eight yearse particularly in the areas of medical malpractice and product liabllity. This reduction in filings demonstrate that there is no crisis in the civll justice system relatlng to tort cases requiring massive restrictions in the tort system. Products liabillty and medlcal malpractice lawsuits account for a miniscule one-tenth of one percent of a11 lawsuits filed in Illinois. The number of product liability lawsuits filed annually has declined, by over half, over the past decade. Less than one percent of a1l lawsuits filed tn Illinois deal with product liability. In 1987: there was one malpractice lawsuit per ten thousand hospital vislts. In 1993, there was still one lawsuit per ten thousand hospital visits. Medlcal malpractice lawsuits make up a tiny share of all civil lawsuits filed in Illinois. Less than one percent of all lawsuits filed deal with medical malpracEice. The number of product liability suits has steadily decreased since 1989, from one thousand three hundred and fifty-one in 1989 to seven hundred and seventy-nine lawsuits in 1993. According to 50  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 I studles by the Rand Corporation, less than one percent of al1 I manufacturinq concerns ln the United States have any involvement a: a11 in producE liability litigation. The Rand Corporation also found that about one percent of sales revenue is absorbed by product liability costs. The evidence shows that the total direct costs of the malpractice system represents less than one percent of the overall health care costs in the United S*ates. The total . amount of a11 liability premiums paid in the -- in the Unlted States represents less than one percent of U.S. health care costs. A great number of physicians receive payments and profits for -- for patient referral and procedures. One recent study concluded that physician self-referral may cost Americans forty billion dollars each year in fees for needless and excessive medical treatment. A 1994 landmark study, by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, on defensive medicine, the mcst conprehensive analysis of the issue to date, concludes that a snall percentage of diagnostic procedures are only ordered primarily because of conscious concerns about malpractice liability. The total dlrect costs of the medical malpractice system in its entirety represents less than one percent of overall U.S. health care costs. The OTA also concluded that most malpractice reforms are unlikely to have much affect on defensive medicine. There is no lack of avallable liability coverage for products and services in the presçnt markety nor has there been such an availability problem in the last ten years. There is no evldence of vastly increased insurance premiums and no evidence to suggest that there's any insurance crisis in Illinois. Since 1990r the share of Illinois output devoted to liability insurance has declined nine percent. Illinois ranks at the median of industrial statês and had the second largesE decline. For insurers, Illinois is far and aWay the most profitable state in whlch Eo write liabllity policies. These lines of lnsurance 51  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR GESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 qenerated eight hundred and thirty-seven nillion dollars in 1 I profiksin1992,one-thirdhigherthanthesecondmost profltable state, Massachusetts. A survey of U.S. business cities in Best's 1 Review ranked Chicago tops ln the nation for insurer headquarters, noting Illinois is an insurance-friendly state and was, in fact, rated by survey participants as having the best regulatory environment for insurance companies. Insurers in Illinois took combined profits of eight hundred and thirty-seven million dollars, an average of twenty-two cents of every dollar in premlums. Medical malpraatice insurance ls the most profltable type of insurance for an insurer to sell, and rates have noE decreased due to enactment of caps. In both Indiana and Illinois, medical malpractice is the single most profitable line of property casualty insurance when measured as a percent of premium over the period fron 1985 to 1992. In Illinois, medical nalpractice insurance earned an aggregate profit of 22.6 -- of premium versus the profits earned ln all property casualty insurance of eleven percent. Indiana 's medical malpractice insurers earned aggregate profits of forty-eight and a half percent of premium, compared to 3.6 percent in al1 lines. Indiana 's profit was twice -- twlce the rate of Illinois. The national -- the Natlcnal Insurance Consumer Organization in 1993 found that between 1985 and 1991, the average return on net worth, i.e., profits after dividends, for wrkters of medical malpractlce insurancs, nationally, has been 14.4 percent. In 1986, Florida passed a number of changes to the tort system . St. Paul Insurance reviewed the tort changes and their potential affect on its medical professional lkability experience. Its review is based on a study of over three hundred Florida closed claims. The toEal effect of the bill based on this evaluation Was very small. The conclusion of the study is that the nongconomic ' cap of four hundred and fifty thousand dollarsr joknt and several liability on the noneconomic damages, and mandatory structured 52  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 settlements on losses above two hundred and fifty thousand will produce little or no savings to the tort system as it pertains to malpractice -- medical malpractice. The GAO estimates that from 1975 to 1985, the medical malpractice industry did not suffer the six-hundred-and-fifty-three-million-dollar loss that it claimedy but rather, made a profit of 2.2 billion dollars. Huge medical ! ' malpractice lnsurance rate increases of fifteen to fifty percent I has occurred ln many states enacting the caps. Thank you very much.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Eurther discussion? Senator Jones. I I

Thank you, Mr. President. We dve heard quite a bit of talk about House Bill 20, that it's on the fast track and What it's ; goln: to do for the people of Illinoisy but let me tell you what the ''Wrongdoer Protection Act'' Will not do for the people of Illinois. Automobile insurance premlums will not decrease. Product liability insurance premiums will not decrease. Medical : I malpractice insurance premiums will not decrease. Homeowners' insurance premiums will not decrease. Consumer prices w1l1 not decrease. Hea1th care costs Wlll not decrease. Hea1th care availability will not improve. The number cf health care providers in Illinois will not increase. Taxes, definitelyr will not decrease. The cost of the civil justice system will not decrease. And pre-trial settlements Will not increase. Experience has shown that when a wrongdoer calculates the cost of defending an action and paying any settlements or awards is less i Ehan the profit to be made from marketin: an unsafe product or I I engaging in an unsafe practlce, the wrongdoer will be more likely to market a -- the unsafe product or engage in unsafe practice. Americans would be much worse off if they were not able to hold Wrongdoers accountable. The -- the makers of asbestos certainly 53  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT i I 22ndLegkslativeDay March3:1995 1 ! did not voluntarily assume responsibility for the harm that they caused the people. A.H. Robbins Company did not offer to compensate the thousands of women injured by the Dalcon Shield. . It is only the civil justice system and punitive damages that have placed accountabllity where it belongs: at the door of the wrongdoer. Punitive damages have made Americans safer. A manufacturer of a children's pajama, the -- the fabric of which gas one hundred percent untreated cotton -- flameless -- stopped making the hlghly flammable garment in 1980 after a Minnesota -- Minnesota jury ordered the company to pay seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars in compensatory damages and cne million dollars in punitive damages to a four-year-old girl who had been badly burned when her pajama's top caught fire. A woman Nas killed and a child severely burned when a Ford Plnto they were driving exploded into flames after being struck from behind by another car. This lawsuit against Ford established that the Pinto gas tank had been defectively designed and that the -- and that Ford had been aware of the danger, but chcosed <s1c> not to redesign car, in order to save noney. In fact, the Ford Company did a cost-beneflt analysis, weighing the costs of correcting the defect against the liabllity resulting from deaths or injured expected to be caused by the defect and determined that it would be cheaper - cheaper - not to -- to correct that defect. Accordlng to the -- the National Highway Safety Administration, that defect caused at least twenty-seven deaths, twenty-four serious burn injuries. Testimony during the trial revealed that the gas tank could have been -- could have made a significant safer at a cost of only eleven dollars per car. The jury awarded that chlld -- the child three million dollars in compensatory damages and because of the outrageous, calculated, callous disregard for life demonstrated by Fordy also awarded punitive damages. In reaction to this and similar lawsuits, Ford finally recalled the Pinto. Per -- per 54  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 capita health costs have grown slower in Illinois than in most skaEes have with *he imposed caps that -- such as this bill. Indiana health care spending per capita grew ak a ra*e of twenty percent faster than -- than in Illinois. As a percentage of households' income, health care costs grew almost twice as fast in Indiana - a state that has caps - than in Illinois. Bekween 1980 and 1991 Illinois saw the slowest growth of aggregate health care spending of a11 the fifty states, including the District of Columbia. Health care availability problems, if they exist, are due to factors unrelated to the tort system . States with caps saw a bigger decline in doctors' growth than states without caps between the years 1991 -- late 1981 and 1991. Caps do not help the medically underserved areas. In 1986, the states that imposed caps on injured vlcttms averaged .033 percent of that population in counties Wlthout an active physician ln patient care. By 1991, that number jumped to 1.24 percent. Objective studies show -- show that the Illinois economy is growing at a faster rake than the nation as a whole. Additionally, unemployment in Illinois is below the national average. Construction is growing at a -- seven times the national rate, and large employers continue to invest in Illinois. Just ask the Governor, in his State of the Stake Address. Monthly exports totaled from Illinois set a record in March and June last year. Exports are nineteen percent higher than last year's level. The Illinols economy galloped ahead of -- in -- in September, passlng *he high-growth rate of summer months to post the best monthly gains in business ac*ivity in seven years. The qross State productr the measure of economic output, grew at a solid 3.l percent in 1993, ahead of the national average. Analysts predict that in 1994, we will see even a higher growth. Very good econony in Illinois. ReEail sales in the first quarter were up 4.6 percent over the same period a year ago , and analysts predict Ehat Illlnois rekall sales w111 con*inue Eo grow 55 i ' STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3: 1995 I ahead of the national average in the next few years. The Chicago Purchase -- Purchasing Managers Index rose from 63.3 percent to I 61.6 percent in August, rating above the fiftyy indicating I 1 . industrial expansion. The Chicago Consumer Price Index grew at an annualized rate of l.7 percent in the second quarter, far behind the national average of 2.4. The Department of Enployment Security reports an increase of ninety-one thousand six hundred and fifty in payroll jobs since khe start of 1994. Service sector jobs growth was healthier in states without caps. Manufacturing employment, likewise, saw no significant changes in most states ' ., that put barriers on injured people's access to the courtroom. j Buslness leaders have acknowledged that U.S. liability laws provide an innovatlve incentive by encouraging U.S. businesses to develop safer, more rellable and more competltive products. Nor 1 is business location within theStatelargelydependentonthe 1 concerns about llability. A 1993 survey of business -- businesses in New York State conducted by the National Pederation of IndependentBusinessesfoundthattaxes Was the most important j factor in the choice of business location. Similarly, according I to Forbes magazine, recently feature -- feature concerning New York State business environment. It is high taxes that have causedbusinessestofleethestate. Thepublicbelievesstrongly i 1 in preservingthectvil justice system and the concept of full 1 compensation for tnjury -- injurkes caused by Wronqdoers. In ' fact, mosk Illinoisans want the right to ftle a lawsuit if khey or their loved ones are killed or injured by a defective product, drunk driver, or even a bad doctor. Seventy-Eive percent of Illinois voters said they Would flle a lawsult if they or thetr famllies were injured. Of the voters who claim to have served on a civil -- civil jury at some time, eighty-two percent affirm their belief thaE the jury reached a fair conclusion in the case. ' j Damage awards for injuries occurring by wrong -- wrongful conduct 56  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislatlve Day March 3, 1995 deter future wrongful conduct. The arbitrary restriction on damage awards encourage future carelessness. This Act require the court to ignore a verdict -- verdict in the amount above the cap, which is supported by evidence, instead enter a judgment for the cap anount. This -- this extraordfnary requirement bears no relations to the doctrines or -- remittitur, new trial and judgement notwithstanding the verdlct, and it cannot be -- be found upon the court's inherent power over verdicts and judgments. Indeed, there exists no permissible basis for entering a judgment predetermined by the Legislature in place of a judgment on a verdict properly reached by a jury. Limits on economic <sic> damages discriminate against individuals with disabllities vlolation of the national mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act cf 1990.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) The Chair Nould appreclate *he Membership would confine their remarks to the five-ninute time limlt, without using the clock. Senator Demuzio is recognized.

Well, thank you, Mr. President. didn't think we were operating under that procedure; however, I Will attempt to be as brief as possible. Nevertheless, when I received my honorary doctorate of jurisprudence from Lewis and Clark, needless to say several years ago, I had no idea I'd have to summon up a1l my powers to say what I wanted to wlthin that five minute period. However, Mr. Presldent, there ls no sclentiflc objective where empirical studies have shown any economic benefits that follow restrictions on the civil justice jury system. Tbere is no objective evldence to show that the civil justice system whtch currently exists negatively impacts Illinois job creation, job retention, health care costs, or insurance costs. Ed Murnane, who is the President of the Civil Justice Leagug, acknowledged that 57  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3: 1995 there is no procf that the average consumer would save mcney as a result of changes in House Bill states that have implenented tort refarm proposats, there is no evidence Eo suggest that residents are paying less in municipal taxes, doctors' fees or insurance premiums, as quoted in the Chicago Tribune of February 10th of 1995. Caps on jury verdicts have absolutely no affect on health costs or availability, on employment, or on consumer prices. Tort restrictions had absolutely no affect on whak consumers paid for goods and servlces, on where and from whom consumers purchased goods and servlces, or on what employment opportunities were available. Nowhere was there a positive correlation between the barriers and savings. This is not -- there is not a shred of evidence that tort restrictions benefit consumers. Much of the care that is commonly dubbed ''defensive medicine'' would probably still be provlded for reasons other than concerns about malpractice. Physicians have always sought to provide patients with the best possible medical care at the lowest risk and will contlnue to do so: even without the threat of lawsuits. Bpcause much of this defensive care helps to reduce the uncertainty of medical diagnosls, it seems unlikely that physicians Would change their practice patterns primatically in response to -- to malpractice reform. Although higher medical malpractice costs have been blamed fcr increasing the nation's health care bill, they do not appe4r to account for much of the increase. In 1987, the Insurance Service Offtce, an office in the insurance agencies' rate-making aggncy, conducted a survey of twelve hundred and sixty-two insurance adjusters from nine insurers in Ewenty-four states, lncludlng fifteen states that had already imposed barriers on victims. The survey concluded that tort restrictions Would have no affect on rates. Available evidence shows that in these states that linit noneconomic damages, employment, health care costs, avallability of health 58  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3: 1995 care and the cost to the ccnsumer do not improve. In the case of Indiana, a borderlng state to Illinois Which has had caps on I noneconomic damages for twenty years, employmentr hea1th care I costs, availability of health care and the cost of consumer goods I I are worse than they are here in the State of Illinois. Indiana's health care spending per capita in the area of health care grew at a rate of twenty percent faster than here in Illinois. Indiana 's spending on physician services per capita grew at a rate of seventeen percent faster than Illinois. Indiana now spends more for doctor services per capita than we do here in our State. There are no objective studies to indicate that limits on noneconomic damages will improve health care in rural Illinois. No state that has imposed restrictions on jury verdicts has seen an improvement in rural health care availability. Missouri 1ed the nation in population living in countries <sic> without a practicing doctor the year before it imposed caps on jury verdicts. Today, almost a decade later, Missouri continues to lead the natlon in population in counties without a practicing doctor. Of the forty-five counties in Illinois wlth ten or fewer dcctors during the eleven-year period that was studied, alnost half, or forty-four percentr had not had any medlcal malpractice suits filed kn the eleven years from 1980 through 1990. More than three-fourths of the counties had not had any lawsuits filed which resulted in cash settlements on payments to the plaintiffs. Of the twenty-five counties with at least one malpractice lawsuit, fourteen either experienced no change in *he number of physicians practicing in that county or actually gained additional physicians. The cap on noneconomic damages w111 deny injured persons recovery for their full economic losses. Capping noneconomic damages will discourage settlements since the defendants Will have little incentive to settle even the most catastrophic cases. David Prikchard, a defense attorney, said - 59  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 and I quote: Every plaintiffs' attorney who knows what they are doing knows why we try ten tlmes as many cases the caps were approved. When an injured plalntiff ls unable to collect his or her damages through the tort systemr that person will becone a burden to the taxpayers of the State of Illtnoys. While tort restrictions will not unclog the courts, they Will insulate wrongdoers from the costs of their recklessness, which is certainly the Civil Justice League's actual goal. Thls will shift the burden of paying for catastrophic injuries away from the negligent parties and cnto injured people, and also to the public welfare system , a substantial increase the tax burden for the people of our StaEe. Because of these above conditionsy there is no reason to invade or to usurp the powers that have been entrusted to the citizensr the jurors and the judicial branch of this State because of the following reasons: Fault remains the basis of tort liability; injured persons should be entrusted that they will continue to be fully and fairly compensated for al1 their -- al1 their losses legally caused by the wrongdoer; the judicial system does and will continue to guarantee that adequate paraneters exist for the review of noneconomic and punitive damages; House Bill 20 will increase the costs of the tort system because it will discourage the settlement of neritorious claims; the present system strikes a falr balance between the rights of injured persons and the protections afforded to wrongdoers; and finallyr the present system provides an appropriate incentive for a poEentlal wrongdoer Eo acE safely and reasonably for the protection of Illinois' citizens from injury and from death. Tbank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Seven minutess Senator Demuzio. Further discussion? Senator Farley.

60  STATE 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislatlve Day March 3, 1995 Thank your Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen of bhe Senate. This bl11 contains a repeal of *he Roadworkers' iafety Act. The title of this Act says that it is an Act to protect Norkers and the general public from injury or death during construction or repair of bridges and highways within the State of Illinois. This bill was passed in 1959 by a vote of one hundred and thirty-nine to zero in the House, and fifty-five to zero in the Senate. The Act prescribes that two flagmen be required where one-way traffic is utilized. It sets out safety standards: requires drivers to obey the flagman and sets out penalties for violations of this Act. In 1993, accordlng to DOT statistlcs, there were eight -- eight thousand five hundred and ninety-nine construction work zone crashes With thirty-one fatalities and three thousand nine hundred injuries. If we repeal this Act, What will take place to ensure flagmen of safety standards and road and bridge construction in this State? And if the problem is the additional right of action, We should just delete that provision, rather than repealing this whole Safety Act. Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further discussion? Senator Smith.

Thank your Mr. President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. I'm delighted to have this privilege to speak. didn't think was gcing to have it. But while sitting here, my secretary brought me a lot of letters. And, as you know, I'm always for the under. As they use the vernacular on *he streetg I might use on this Floor. The underdog, as they call Ehe person who has been injuredy thak is my forte. I have many professional people in my disErict, but I want to just say something ornery in behalf of those Who cannot be here to speak for themselves, but they have been in my office. And merely want to say to our Body, that any cap decided by *he Legislature 61  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day Mareh 3, 1995 is the product of the worst sort of arrogance. Thls is necessarily true, because imposing caps implicitly presumes that twelve citizens are not qulte as smart as the politicians and are no* unable <s1c> Eo exercise sound judgment though <sic> their collective experience to determine the degree in which another one's individual or entity is responsible for harming another. If these historical trends teach us anythingr it is likely that the five hundred thousand dollarsr which is to be collectively garnered from a jury for and I quote - 'loss cf a normal llfe, pain and suffering and disability'', will not be reflective of the actual amount received ar needed by the injured party. Not by a long shot. Perversely: the reforms that are bein: offered are not true reform tn any meantngful sense of the word . For an example, if one is truly interested in reforms, he must acknowledge and attempt to change the most inefficient and irrational imposition on our civil justlce system whlch may arise from both the plaintiff's and the defendant's side. Sinllarly: if reform is intended to reduce health care costs, why it that the Legislature's so strangely silent on advancing in any additional proposals: however modest, which wculd begin even address tbe ever-spiraling medical health care costs in this country? The answer is too obvious for the rejoinder: No one is advancing these current reforms is interested in the real, true reforms. Arbitrarily, restrictions upon the people participation within aur civil justice system is also fundamentally contrary to Ehe notion of the smaller government *he rallying cry of the propcnents of this legislation - lndeed as currently crafted, the tort reform being advanced, are also a real and irrevocable Ehreat to constitutional governmentr large or small as We know it. I am wholeheartedly appealing to this legislative Body that we rethink our trend and do not pass this tort reform. It's not just the professional people thak we are seeking to help, but people who 62  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 I ! have been maimed for the rest of their lives and cannot do i anything about i: but depend upon us. Thank you and God bless you. PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) . Senator Dunn, for a second tlme.

Thank you, Mr. Presldent. I do not rise to speak to the issues of House Bill 20. I do rise, hoWevery to say to the Body that we have offered to shorten the process here today a little bit by providing our own documents and transcript of What wesve said to the President. And in looking at the -- the Constitution, Article IV, Section 7(b) and (c) provide that each Body of the House and the Senate shall have transcripts and further that each Body has the ability Eo subpoena records and books. So, in -- in light of that authority that We do have the power to produce books, records and papers, I would direct one of our staff to present to Secretary Harry the docunent that -- that we Would normally read into the recordr but in order to save time, we Would -- we would offer it. Whether you obviously choose to accept it is up to you. But in an effort to shorten the -- the time span, that's -- that's our offer.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Well, Senator Dunn, we have never made part of the transcrlpt written material. Only oral testimony from the Membership. Senator Fitzgerald.

Thank you, Mr. Presldent. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate, what we 've heard so far has been a shotgun approach to this bill. The Members on the other side of the aisle have read into the record prepared remarks and have tried to throw something out there to set this bill up for a constitutlcnal challenge in the Supreme Court. And what I'd llke to do ls to address some of the 63 I STATE 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 objections that they have raised and try and give you the rational basis for them. Senator Dunn, you had a very interesting concppt when you started out, and I think it was plcked up by Senator Cullerton. You talked about the rules that existed in common law, at ccmmcn law in England before the adoption of the United States ConsEikuElon, and tried to suggest that Ehe cap on noneconomlc damagps in this bill was somehow a violation of that constitutional right to trlal by jury as lt existed at common law. And I thought about thatr and I said: You know, that's an interesting proposition, because if we wanted to really make a strong tort reform bill, maybe we should go back to the rules that existed at ccmmon 1aw in England before the Constitution was adopted. Because there were a 1ot of rules then that provided protection for defendants that no longer exist. And when those protections were gradually obllterated over the last, ohy maybe a hundred or so years, I didn't hear the plaintiffs' bar complaining. There is a stronger assumption of risk doctrine. There is contributory negligence. It was possible for one at common law to contractually limit one 's liability. There was a prlvity requlrement. There were much tougher causation requlrements to show that a defendant caused an injury. There Weren't as many categories of damages. There weren 't as many causes of action. And, in fact, I think they had the English rule even back then, where the loser had to pay the other side's attorney 's fees. So if you folks on the other side of the aisle and the plaintiffs ' bar are really sincere about going back to the good o1d days, maybe after we pass House Bill 20 up to the Governor, we can sit down, Senator Dunn and Senator Cullerton, and negotiate going back to those rules, because that would be much bettgr, stronger tort reform than we are now presenting here. And, in fact, I've done a little research on this issue, and I have asked *he oEher side to produce a case from *he old common 64 I E  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 law, prior to the adoption of our Constitution, in which it can clearly be shown that noneconomic damages were awarded at common 1aW. And the cases in those days didn 't really break things dcwn as well as they do now, but lt just so happens that my research .- and this is my own research - I find the first British common 1aw case awarding noneconomic damages clearly - clearly awarding them ' - is about -- came from about 1832, long after our Constitution was adcpted. And I understand that ln Illinois one of the flrst cases was the late l800s. So let's not come up wlth this kendentious argument that somehow there is this right to this vague category of danages at common law. That is not at a11 clear. But in any case, assumlng for the sake or argument that there is some validity to Senator Dunn or Senator Cullerton's statements, what is the quid pro quo? What is society getting in return for *he cap on noneconcmic damages? We have a rational belief that w9 Will further a legltimate State interest in creating jobs, in retaining jobs, in promoting the affordability and availability of health care in Illinoisr of lowerlng consumer prlces, of lowering municipal taxes and of affording some predictabillty and stability for our economy. We will make Illinois more competitive, we believe, in the state and national economy. I Was reading last night - and it's very fortuitous that I was - reading the Chicago Lawyer magazine, from March 1995. That's this month's edition. And they interviewed in this magazine several plaintiffs ' personal injury attorneys and asked what they thought of noneconomic damages and the cap. And on page nineteen of that issue, there's a quote from a plaintiff's attorney, Neil Zazove, Z-A-Z-O-V-E: of Zazove and Associates. And I -- this is a direct quote: nWhen you go before a jury you say, '1 can't quantify pain and sufferingr' and then you quantify it. Is it a bizarre system? Yeah.l ' Tha*'s a plainkiff's personal lnjury attorney. And *he point about noneconomic damages is just thatr what Mr. Zazove 65  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 said: They are not capable of being quantified, at least not in monetary terms. And we in this Legislature, afEer reviewing a11 the available data, after reviewing the evidence in the other states - the many other states - that have caps on nonecononic damages, after reviewing the large body of scholarly literature which calls into question the propriety and appropriateness and the legitimacy of the entlre category of noneconomic damaqes, and we have determined that a five-hundred-thousand-dollar cap indexed for inflation is an amount which at one time would recognize that noneconomic losses can be real, that they are real losses, but at the same time says Ehat those losses do not have a monetary dimgnsion and that a -- as a matter of public policy, we in the Legislature are nct going to allow awards of more than five hundred thousand dollars in noneconomic damages, because beyond that point, you start to get the type of economic instability and destabilization.thaE we in the Leglslature are saying, as a matter of public policy, we do not want to have in Illinois. You called into question on the other side Whether we have faith in the jury. We have faith in the jury systemy and juries do an excellent job individual cases in deciding awards. But what juries do not look at is the systemic cost of al1 the awards in the aggregate because that is not their role. The role in setting the policy in looking at the big picture, that is our unique role in the Lesislature and that is what we are doing in imposing the caps. Now, your comments were very interesting fcr what you did not dwell on, as well as for what you did. Very little was said cn the other side of the aisle in defense of the doctrine of joint liabillky. That ls because it's hard to explaln to constituents why they should be held liable beyond their propcrtionate share of fault. Why should Ehey -- their ability to pay determine their liability instead of their degree of fault? What we are saying with this bill, by abolishing the doctrine of joint liability and 66  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 creatlng a pure several liability system in Illinais, is that you will be responsible for the harm you cause; you wi1l not responsible for the harm thaE scmeone else causes.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Senator Fitzgerald, would you try to bring your remarks to a close.

Yes, I will. And in the end, abollshing joint and several liability will enhance the deterrent -- deterrent effect of our laws because people Will know that they cannot :et cff from causin: an injury because someone else happens to have a deeper pocket. Finally, one more pcint tha: T Nant to bring up about the safety issue. And th9 point Was made on the other side of the aisle that these high noneconomic awards and other awards are actually promcting safety. But: the fact of the matter is, there's serious question after a certain polnt when you add so much to khe cost of a new car or a new airplane. And am told now that new snall airplanes carry as much as a fifty percent premiun for product liability insurance, and that because of that, new planes, new cars are not as competitive as they otherwise would be in Ehe market vis-a-vis old planes and old cars. So the system that we have ncw is actually counterproductivey the endw when -- when we are forcing people to use older products that are demonstrably less safe. At a certain point, we -- we get a subversion of the deterrent's purpose of tort laws. Ladies and Gentlemen of *he Senate, thank you for your patience, and I will defer to my colleagues.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Further discussion? Senator Karpiel.

Thank you, Mr. President. Same of the opponents to this bill have said that its passage hurts women and children more than 67  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 others. As a Woman and a mother of three daughters, wculd like to address this distortion of the truth. This bill does not take away what is already 1aW in this State. The current system of tort 1aw in Illinois is intended to compensate peopley a11 pecple, including women, for the amount of their loss. Under that law, if two people with similar or ldentical injuries suffer different levels of injury -- I mganw different levels of loss, they are not entitled to the same compensatlon. That is present law. Thus, tWo individuals with similar injuries may recover different awards. And that is due Eo one person may be earning twenty-five thousand dollars a year, and they Will have their economic losses based part on that lost income, and similarly, the person making fifty thousand dollars a year will have Ehe same system applied to their loss. Under this bill, none of that would change. Por women like my daughter Laurar who is employed outside of the home at a very high-paying job, if injured, she would receive higher economic damages than would her husbandr he received an ldentical injuryw because she earns more than he does. For those women who do not work outside th9 home, like my daughter Lynn, current 1aw would grant her economic damages based on lost services -- her lost services as a honemaker. In fact: a one-and-a-half-million-dollar damage award was recently awarded a homemaker for her eccnomic damages. One and a half million dollars. These homemaker eçonomic damages have been quantified and upheld in court. None of this will change under this blll, and scare tactics should not be used ln *he publlc debate on this issue. If I thousht tha: Ehis would hurt wcmenr like my three daughters, certainly wouldn't be standing in support of 1t. If women's awards for economic damages are lower than men's iE is bgcause, on average, they earn less than men. I agree that this should be chanqed. I'd like to see khem earn morer but not through Ehe tort system. Thank you. 68  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WEAVER) Purther discussion? Senator Lauzen.

Thank you., Mr. President. There's certainly no perfect legislation. There is usually some bad w1th the good that we vote on. There are many of us who feel that the concept of tort reform is a powerful good, but some of us feel that there are serious flaws ln this blll. Senator Cullerton points out an example of overreaching where werp provide immunity to estate lakyers. I Would offer to cosponsor that pcrtion of any trailer bill that you 're referring to. Secondly, caps do provide predictability, and that's a good. If we're wrong in where We place the cap , would be more prudent to put them at a millian dollars: rather than five hundred thousand, but wedre beyond that point in today's vote. Itfs a legitimate question to be asked, ''Wi1l our hospitals, doctors, governments decrease Eheir fees to us?'' That's an answer that wedll have to see the market. There is more good than bad in this effort to change the direction of our culture is moving in wherey when you slip and fall, the first reaction isn't, 'dWell, I was really clumsy; I'm going to -- I'm going to be more careful next timern as opposed to, ''Wel1,'' looking around, saying, ''Who am I gaing to sue?'' But may ask the sponsor *o address my major concern in his closing remarks, which is the cap on punitiMe damages. What would happen in the case of the Pinto case in Illinois under this legislation? Thank you very much .

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Purther discussion? Senator Barkhausen.

Thank you, Mr. President and Ladigs and Gentlemen of the Senate. If might start with a general observation and -- and also somethinq of a personal note. As a longtime advacate of tort 69  STATZ 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 reform, mostly a frustrated one, in this Chamber, Would note that for years there has been an attempt in the General Assembly to raise the general question of whether the hlgh costs lmposed by some of the rules and procedures of our civil justice system are unduly costly and burdensome to -- to our citizens. And after a long, long period of time in which this issuey think it's fair to say, is almost one that could not be discussed in this Capitol within polite company, let me just say that it is gratifying, tc say the least, that the debate has now been fully engaged. If I may, otherwise, begin with tuo questions of the bill's sponsor, Senator Dillard.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Tndicates he will yleld, Senator Barkhausen.

Senator Dillard, for purposes of this Act, does *he Legislature intend that a cause of actlon accrues on th9 same day that the applicable statute of linitations begins to run?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senator Dillard.

Yes, it does, Senator Barkhausen. The term ''accrues'' as used in this Ac*, is intended to have the same meaning as that tern has in Section 13-202 of Chapter 735 - the statute of limitations for personal injury actipns. Por example, if the date of an automobile accident or the date a person knew or should have known that he has a disease ls after the effective date of this Act, then the provisions of the Aet would apply eo that lawsuit.

PRESIDING OFFTCER: (SENATOR MATTLAND) Senator Barkhausen.

And secondly, Illinois has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Is it tbe intent of the Legislature 70  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY RECULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 I that any clalm that can be filed timely after Ehe second anniversary of the effectivê date of this Act shall be governed by the provisions of this Actr if applicable?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senator Dillard.

Yes. TheLegislaturehasdeterminedthatboth the interests 1 I of potential defendants in finality and *he interests of the State in protecting the vested rights of its citizens are served by allowing citizens up to two years to investlgate and file their claim for damages under noW existin: rules. Therefcrer the provisions of this Act would apply, Senator.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senator Barkhausen.

Thank youy Mr. President. If I otherwise might attemptr llke my colleagues on this side before me and after ne, to -- to respond briefly as I can to some of the lengthy remarks that Were made about certain parks of this bill. And the first comments I'd like to make deal With the question of -- of jury instructions and parttcularly the question of wbether it is right for us to be saying, as we do in this legislation, the fact that personal injury damases are -- are tax-free is sometbing that should be included in an inskruction, and khe fact that there is this cap on noneconomic damages and the fifty percent ruley as it's generally known, should not be natters that are included in instructions to the jury. And first as to the question of -- of the tax impact. It's -- it's certainly fair to say that the role of the jury is to determine facts, in general: and that *hê role of the court or the judge is to apply the law, and one of the facts that needs to be determined by the jury is the -- of course, the exkenk of losses, if any, suffered by the injured party. And in determining what 71  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Leglslative Day March 3, 1995 are damages and what i: will kake to make a plaintiff whole, certainly it's more than relevant to that deternination the fact that personal injury damages are tax-free. It should also be said that the fact that personal injury damages are tax-free is is not a subjeet on Which any great tax expert will have to be brought farward to testify. The law is very clear on that subject, and believe it's contained in -- in Internal Revenue Code Section l04(A). Then as to the question of the impact of of the fifty-percent rule and the cap on noneconomic damages and whether -- whether it is somehow -- as alleged by the other side, whether it is somehow unfair not to disclose that to the jury in advance. It has been pointed out that there are other matEers of this klnd: matters of law, not of fact, which are not disclosed to the jury, and one of thosez as has been nentioned: is the potential of the eourt to after the jury's verdict is brought inr the potential of the court to render a judgment NOV, or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as it's known. And so in that instancer the jury's deliberations may be of no practical effect and impact because of the court taking it upon itself to enter a judgement NOV. In addition, as has also been mentloned, the court has the power of remittltur, as lt's known, the poker to reduce an auard below the level included in the jury's verdict. And neither of -- just as neither of those potential acticns by the court are disclosed in a/vance to the jury, so it ls our bellef in these two cases the fifty-percent rule and the cap on noneconomic damages - that these do not need to be disclosed to the jury and that indeed the jury's fact-findins role can and should best be carried out free from any potential influence of questions of law that could coneeivably color the objectivity of the jury's findings. Next, would like eo simply comment that there 1sg I think at best, great confusion on the other side as to the combined impact of the repeal ln this bill of the doctrine of joint liability and  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 the Kotecki Rule. would simply note that the -- the real objection here: think and lt's a matter of philosophlcal difference between the two sides as to -- as to Whether it's fair and it makes sense to repeal the doctrine of joint liability. But a in a case where there is initially a defendant who is found to be proportionally responsible only for its own fault and there is also an employer; the defendant will pay only its share of proporticnate faultr but the plaintiff will also receiver or in many cases have already received, noney from the employer under workers' compensation, and the employer would only be able to recover some of what it has pald out or might pay out under workers' compensation, if the employer's -- if the amount of the employer's own proportionate fault is less than -- than what it has paid out under workers' compensation. And to the extent it is less, then the employer would be able to reeover that difference. Butr otherwiseg the employer Wouldn't be able to recover anything. There was: in addition, a question raised as to the change in the legislation relatinq Eo the timing of filing contribution actions. And again T think the eomments here have to do with a difference of opinion as to what best promotes efficiency and economy kn the manner in which personal injury litigation is handled. In general, we believe that it pakes sense for there to be a determination of What the percentage share of responsibility of various defendants or potential defendants is before contribution actions are brought or need to be brought. And under this system as we propose lt, contribution actionse whlch might otherwise have been filed, they may not be -- they may not even be necessary if, in fact, a defendant or potential defendant is not found to be proportionally liable for any portion of the damages. And so we believe that this chanqe will -- will save money by preventing contribution actions that really don't need to be brought. However, in healing art malpractice cases, there is a concern that 73  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 the that lengthening the time in which to bring contribution actions will unduly extend the effective statute of limitations or Ehe statute of repose. And finally, Mr. President, many comments have been made on the other side that it -- are really impossible to swallow that sonehow the chançes in this legislation will have absolutely no impact on consumer costs, taxpayer costs or insurance premiums. Wlth regard to insurance, one doesn't need to be a great lover of insurance conpanies on the one hand, nor need to be an actuary to recognize that insurance is basically a pass-through mechanism and that the cost of insurance obviously reflects the costs that are incurred by the insurance company in extending the coverage. And to the extent costs are limited elther because awards are somewhat limited or, more importantly in this legislation, the costs of aetually defending lawsuits are limited, then over a period of tine, as this legislation takes effect - and it will be a period of time beeause of the impact of the effective date - surely the costs of insurance will either come down, on the one hand, or not increase to anywhere near the extent that it would have otherwise should we not be taking this action. Well, so much for insurance. More importantly what we're talking about here' Ladies and Gentlemen is the cost to consumers and the cost to taxpayers. Can the other side truly say that an award that we heard about in Judiciary Committee - we had the Mayor from Hanover Park who testifiqd in regard to an award of 6.5 million dollars of which six million dollars was for noneconomic damages can it -- can i: Eruly be sald Ehat that award does not have an impact on the taxpayers of Hanover Park? END OF TAPE TAPE 3  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995

Can it truly be said that the awards the many awards brought every year against the Chicago Transit Authority - and two years ago, there was one for in excgss of twenty-five million dollars, most of which was noneconomic damages - can it truly be said that a fair and reasonable limitation on noneconomic damages will have no impactw no benefit, either for the riders cf that system who must pay higher fares ln order to pay inordinate costs of noneconomic damages, or for the taxpayers of this State and region who otherwise subsidize mass transit? Can it truly be said...

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senator Barkhausen, would you bring your remarks to a close, please, sir.

Can truly be said that this legislation will have no benefiE? Obviously not. is our function, Mr. President and Ladies and Gentlemenr to balance the interests of injury victims, as we have With those of consumers and taxpayers. We, the sponsors and proponents of this legislation, are firmly convinced that we have done a falr job in this regard, and we ask for your support.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Further discussion? Further digcussion? Senator Cronin.

Thank you very muchr Mr. President. Ir too, would like to offer a couple of brief remarks in resard Eo six specific areas of *he bill. Thosg provisians includg: the affidavit, the certificate of merit, the lawyers' statute of limitationsr the local government provision, consumer fraud, and wrongful death. Just briefly regard to those, and starting with the provision providing Ehat an affidavit must accompany a complaint of medical 75  STATE OP ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 nalpractice. This specific provision requires the disclosure of the name of the individual who has reviewed the merits of the case. We belleve, and the sponsors believe, Ehat this allows for a quicker and more efficient examination by a11 those parties to the claim. This is not the expert; this is the medical reviewer Who attests to the merits of the case. The rationale of this provision is that if the medical reviewer is known by al1 partiesz a determination can be made as to whether or not this is a reputable professional who has -- is within his area of expertise and who has the ability and the knowledge to attest to the merits of the claim . The case can proceed more intelligently, efficiently, and nore fairly. We believe that this disclosure requirement permits not only a better evaluation of the case, but we also believe that it's very appropriate, in that the threshold issue in al1 medical malpractice actions turns on the standard of care. So it's critlcal that we have someone wlth some expertise attesting to the merits of the case at time one. Secondly, the certificate of merlt provision that accompanies a complaint of product liability. This is an important new provision in the law. It seeks to parallel what has been the current law with respect to medical malpractice actions. Eurthermore, thls product ltabillty provision of the certificate of merit must be attached to the complaint that states that a qualified expert has examined the product or has examined literature about the product, and that the action has nerit. Specifically, the expert's report must contain a deternination that the defective condition cf the product or the defendant's fault Was a proxlmate cause of the plaintiff's harmz and it goes on to provide for other -- other requlrements as well. There are three important points to note with this neW provision: Number one, with the certificate that you have, it examlned the product -- the certificate that you have examined the product or it examined the literature. This literature's available tn trade 76  STATE OF ILLTNOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 journals, technical publications, and so forth. The third important point is that the certificate -- it must certify that the product is not available. Now: this is the third requirement, or third provision, that the certificate can show that the product I ls nat availablg and that one made a good-faith effort to -- to i gain access to the product that is *he subject matter of the product's liability claim . Current 1aw requires that a plaintiffls attorney certify that the allegations in any complaint are well-grounded. In fact, this is a standard applied by both State and federal court systems. In product liability cases, in particular in design defect cases, it's virtually impossible for an attoraey to certify that a claim is well-grounded tn fact: withcut fkrst obtaining the determination of qualified expert. The ! lawyers ' statute of limitations is an issue that was addressed earlier, particularly by Senator Cullerton. He talked about a two-year statute that -- a bill -- a current law that provides tWo years after one knew or should have known, or six years. He suggests that we're letting negligent lawyers off the hook. Our rationale, and our reasonr is that wedre not letting lawyers off the hookr in faet we're keeping them on the hook for six years. But weIre trying to inject a little reasonableness into the -- I : ; lnto this part of the law. Who or why should these lawyers be on the hook literally forever? The laW changes; many things can happen over a period of time of generations. We heard some compelling testimony from a Mr. William Peithmann, who happens to be the Chairman of *he Estate planning Section of *he Illlnoiù State Bar Association. He talked about the fact that he's a I local, relatively small-town, practicing lawyer. A family business - his father Was in the business. He illustrated for us that I I under current law: a will that his father may have drafted years ago may have caused a series of event that result in this gentleman's song the grandson, who's not even in 1aw school yet, i 77 i L  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 could be held liable for. We're just trying to inject a little reasonableness into the system. Even criminals have been afforded better protection with statutes of limitations. Next: we have the local government provision. Real quickly, with the proliferation of public service given as a -- as a sentence for those that are convicted of various crimes, we want to provide some measure of protection for local or -- or for government bodies, as well as nonprofit institutions, that enter into agreemenEs to permit these convicted people an opportunity to fulfill their public service sentence, whether they're working at a hospital or they're working at a soup kitchen or they 're working with senior citizens. We believe the public policy qoal that these organizations should not be held liable when they are trying to fulfill a public good; that is, help these people provide a service ln fulfilling their their sentence and also providing some public good. The consumer fraud provision of the Act is -- is somethlng that needs to be addressed. We believe that creaeive plaintiff's lawyers have tried to use the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act <sic> in an unintended way to expand the scope of the Act. We are providing that there shall be an exception included in the 1aW. We are nct taking away any tort theories of recovery. Finallyr the wrongful death provislon is kind of an interesting one and kind of goes in the other direction as far as the reforms are concerned in this bill. We have actually provided that wrongful death recoveries -- or, recoveries in wrongful death actions are now going to be more generous, in that comparative fault is implemented into these wrongful death actions. wronsful death action, as you know, can only be brought under current 1aw if the decedent had a claim prior to death. And now we 're sayinq that comparative fault principles will be implemented ln this system. Mr. President, that's the sum and substance of my remarks, and I urge a favorable vote. 78  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Further dlscussion? Senator Dillard, to close.

Thank you: Mr. President, Ladles and Gentlemen of the Senate. certainly thank you for your patlence and attentiveness durlng the debate on What is obviously a very, very major piece cf legislation before this Body. Before I close, Mr. President: I do want to just address and clarify a couple of things that were said in debate. First, I want to make sure that everyone understands that the term ''accrues'' means that the action which gave a right to bring a lawsuit oceurred after the effective date of this Act, and therefore, as that kerm exists in the statute of limitations for personal injury actions, the provisions of this Act would apply to that lawsuit. Let me just for a second pcint out a couple cf things that were brought out in debate on punitive damages. First of all. scmeone on the o*her side of the aisle talked about the Dalcon Shield case. That case, as I understand it: Was a class action lawsuit that made a number of women receive, as victims, seventy thousand dollars apiece. It was a class action suit. It's different than would come under the Damages Section, under Punitive Damages of our bill, and that company pald out many, many wamen seventy thousand dollars apiecer and that was a huge award. But I believe that action would not be affected by House Bill 20. The standards in the Punitive Damage Sectlon that set up clear and convincing evidence as a standard of evidence is high -- beeause welre talking about punlshmenE, like a criminal case. And I want to make it very clearr too r in -- in punltive damage awards: we're not talking about compensating a victim r we are about -- talking about punishing a defendant. Tha: is a very lmportanE distinction. So a11 of those opponenks of the blll who argue that somehow a limitaticn a rational limitation on punitive damages negatively impacts any segment of our society, 79 g ' ! STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 whether they be women, children, or those who are unemployed for example, really doesn't bear a relationship because punitive damages are to punish the wrongdoing of a defendant, not to compensate a victim. Lastly on punitive danages, we use a terminology called ''evil motive'' in thls bill, and tha: language comes directly from our Illinois Supreme Court. Moreover, that language has been used in the restatement of torts, one of the major bodies of -- of -- of horn-bcok 1aw that we in the legal profession follow. Concerning government standards in product liability cases, I want to make it real clear that there is a presumption - a presumption, it can be rebutted - that if a government agency says that the standard that Was followed by a manufacturer is proper, that there is a presumption that can be overcome by a plaintiff. It's not definitive; it's not final. And a plaintiff certainly could overcome a government standard. I also Want to make it clear concerning the Section of the bill dealing with government standards ln products cases, that where we talk about -- where we talk about Written Warnings. Throughout that Section we used the term ''reasonable''. Welre not about to throw a flve- or a six-hundred-page manual at a farmer who may be injured in an implement accldent and say, 'You're responsible for everyEhing in that six-hundred-page document, and geez, you shouldn't have gotten on that tractor, or you shouldn't have operated that machinery without reading it.'' And if you read the bill, We used the term ''reasonable'' throughout that Secticn of our bill. Wedve heard a lok of talk abou: medical records, and Ehat deals With a case called ''Petrillo''. And it's really not the Petrillo matter khat is *he problem, iE's a number of cases thaE followed it. But I Want to make about three or four points perfectly clear to the Members of this Body. First of allr a physician and patient privilege is statutory. It is created by us; iE is no* a common-law concern. We can change it because it's 80  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 statutory and it comes from the Illinois General Assembly. Existing laws say that physicians now can disclose, and al1 we're doing - those records - all we're doing is changing the procedure, not the substance in the Petrillo Section of this bill. And importantly, it's the plaintiff who puts the physical or mental condition of themselves into issue when they bring a lawsuit. But there are plenty of protections in thls bill, as there are currently in today's law. We don't tinker with confidenttality, and clearly the records nust be relevant. Obviously, if a women has an injury to her hand, we're not going to Want to see gynelogical Ksic> records and a11 the other hysterkcal things that have beea brouqht out in debate over this bill over the last couple of months. These are logical changes to the Petrillo Rule, or Petrillo Doctrine, that make cases proceed more quickly and more inexpensively. There are a 1ot of ridieulous situatlons that have risen after Petrillo in the way that cases have interpreted' including the fact that some -- in some instancesr you cannot even talk to an employee of a clinic or a hospital that yau may operate. But I want to nake it very clear, the records must -- you have the relevancy, as We1l as the confidentiality, of these records are not tampered with, and if someone has problems with a record, they can clearly go ln under motlon practlce tcday, as well as after the effective date of House Bill 20, and have records, if they are not relevant, stricken by a court of law. Senator Lauzen asked me to address the Pinto case. And: Senatorr I don't know what an Illinois jury would do Eoday wiEh the facts that they Were faced With, and far be it from me to defend Ford Motor Company. But one of the things I've -- I've heard throughout throughout not only the debate on this bill, but just in produc: liability cases and tort reform in general, ls that Ford Motor Company Wrote a memorandum y and they made a very callous decision that it was cheaper, literally, Eo have people 81  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 injured, or burned, or maimed, than to fix the defect. Well, have the affidavit of the gentleman that was responslble, or one of a couple of gentlemen at Ford Motor Company, for that particular case, and he says in his affidavit that that report, that -- that -- that often referred to memorandum, that cost-benefit analysis of Whether it was cheaper to fix the car or whether it was cheaper, in cold and callous Eerms, to burn an individual, that report was prepared for the National Transportation Highway Safety Adninistration in another part of Ford Motor Company. It was not prepared by people who made decisions about whether or not to fix that car, tc pull cff. It was not a cost-benefit analysis made by decision-makers. was made off in another part of Ford Motor Company response to National Transportation Highway Safety Admlnistration standards, and it is definitely -- it is definitely something different than a real cold, calculated memorandum that said, ''Heyy it's cheaper to burn people than to fix the automobile.'' As responsible legislators, it's our duty to address the problemsr I thlnk, of this State, sometlmes before they reach an absolute crisis level. think most public opinion polls show that people who elected us have little confidence, ar no confidence: or falling confidencer in the civil justice systen to provide justice a timely manner or in a fair manner. Therefore, I do think that we should place reasonable limlts on noneconomic damage awards before the threat of excessive awards causes Illinois to lose job-producing: tax-generation businesses to neighboring states that have adapted more rational tort systems than ours. We should place a reasonable limlt on noneccnomic damages before *he threat of excessive awards causes irreparable harm to the health care system of our State. And we must remove the lottery-type threat of punitive damage awards in order to further the development of new lifesaving drugs and other praducts whlch contribute to the health 82  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 and well-being of the eitizens of our State. Therefore, I think the reforms proposed in this bill are preventative as Well as corrective. To close, Mr. President, 1et me say that we have had, physically, this bill in this Body for two weeks. .has been analyzed. It has been turned over. In committee the other day, we had seventy amendments prepared by the opponents of this bill. That shows me that there has been a thorough analysis of this bill; plenty of time to look at And yesterday 's State Journal Register here in Springfield characterized our hearing, Which Senator Hawkinson fairly presided, as a ''marathon'' five-hour session of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I've only served in this Body year or so, but I've been around this process a long tine. This issue has been around. These concepts in this bill have been around a long time. And I can guarantee you that the opponents of this bill: just like we proponents, have lookedr analyzed every commar and everything in this bill. So there's been plenty of ample time for study. 1, personally: as the sponsor of this bill, have met with plaintiffs' trial lawyers. I have met with hundreds of people privately, as well as in committee hearings, on this bill: to seek their input. The opponents have argued that this bill ts for big buslnessr or big medlcine, or blg insurance, that's where this comes from . But what they failed to overlook, I think, are the thousands and, indeed, hundreds of thousands and milllons of residents of Illinois Who have been represented in the drafting of this bill. How about a11 the millions of people that rlde public transportation - senlor citizens, students: riding the CTA, Pace: or downstate transportation systems, vho faced increased fares wben they can 't afford it, because of the growing cost and ridiculousness of some of the litigation in these awards? HoW about the mayors, or the school superintendents, or park districts, throughouE the State, who -- and their constituents who face higher Eaxes? And the loss 83  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 of the use of those facilities, for ehildren, because of the growing cost of liabiltty and litigation. The small businesses of Illinois. Thls isn't necessarily about blg business; lt's not necessarily about the Ford Motor Companys or Caterpi.llar tractors. What about the tkenty-one thousand members of the National Federation of Independent Businesses and their mom-and-pop operations, in many cases, who need this bill to stay in business and to keep moving forward with the American dream? What about the farmers of Illinois - the three hundred and eighty-five thousand members of the Illinois Farm Bureaur Who stand behind this legislation? And importantlyr the not-for-profit organizatlons of this Stater and a11 of those volunteers? Those are day care centers. Those are homeless shelters. Those are foster care providers. Those are organizations that provide recreational and development activities for children. And the other side, or the opponents of thts billw a lot of times, like to criticize us for always using the girl scout cookie analysis. Wellg we got a neW one; it's little league baseball. How more wholesome, especially at a lower levele can this bill's impact be seen? Yeah, doctors support this legislation, and so do hospitals and clinics, but they support so they ean go back to concentrating on health care. That's their Rissionz rather than providing and worrying about needless records and needless Eests that have to be going on, as well as a11 of the unwarrantqd litigation that sometimes takes then away from Working on our families and healing our brothers and slsEers. Manufacturers provide many of Ehe nongovernmental jobs in Illinois. They support thls legislakion because it helps them, What they're supposed to do too. It helps then create jobs. It helps keep our economy growing without worrying about unlimlted and somettmes meritorious -- unmeritorious lawsuits. And those manufacturers tn Illinois, how about 'em? They've slowed down their research. 84  I STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIFT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 They've slowed down their development. Let's frankly face it: because of the risk cf lawsuits. And they support it because it Will help them move forward with new technology, new health care developmentsy new and better communication. And many of those many of those impact positively Cor womeny children and the downtrodden of our State. Mr. President, House Bill 20r the Clvil - - Civil Justice Reform Amendments of 1995 are a significant step forward Illinois. And the attention this legislation is attracting nationwide will encourage other states to do the right thing too, and perhaps the United States Ccngress as well. strongly urge your favorable vote. This is a very important bill for all segments of Illinois.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) The question is, shall House Bill 20 pass. Those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed, Nay. The voting is open. Have a1l voted Who wish? Have a11 voted who wish? Have a11 voted who wish? Take the record: Mr. Secretary. On that question, there are 36 Ayes, 20 Nays, no Members voting Present. House Bill 20, having received the required constitutional majority, ls declared passed. Senator Cronin, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

Thank you, Mr. President. Having voted on the prevailing side, I mave to reconsider.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senator O 'Malley.

Yes. Mr. Presidentr move that we table the motion to reconsider.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senator O 'Malley moves that that the motion ta be -- to reconsider be tabled. Al1 those in favor, say Aye. Opposed: Nay. The Ayes have itr and the motion is tabled. Senator Demuzio, for 85  STATE OF ILLINO'S 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 whak purpose do you rise, sir?

Mr. President, for the reccrd. Senator Hall and Senator Collins are again absent today due to illness.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) The record will so reflect, Senator Demuzic. ...tmicrlphone cutoffl.v.Gentlemen on page 7 of today's Calendar ls the Order of Motions in Writing to Reconsider the Vote. Mr. Secretary, read the motion, please.

Having voted on *he prevailing side, I move to reconsider the vote by which Senate Bill 206 passed. Filed, March 2nd, 1995, and signed by Senator Shaw .

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senator Geo-Earis.

I rise to speak against this moticn for reconsideration. I urge a No vote.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senator Geo-Karis.

And I move to table his motion.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senator Geo-Karis moves that -- the motion in Writing be tabled. A11 those in favorr say Aye. Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have and Ehe motion is Eabled. Roll call has been requested. Those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed: Nay. In favor of the motion to table, those in favor, vote Aye. Opposed, Nay. And the voting is open. Have all vated Who Wish? Have all voted who wish? Have a11 voted who uish? Take the record, Mr. Secretary. Tbere are 35 Menbers voting Aye, 20 Members voting Nay, no Membrrs voting Present, and the motion carries, and the motion is tabled. 86  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 Senator Geo-Karisr for wha: purpose do you rise, ma'am?

Mr. presiden: and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate, for a point of clarification, the motion we voted on was to table the motion to reconsider. Is that correct?

PRESIDING OFPICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) That ls correct.

And, because I ?as confused right herer happened to vote No and I shculd have voted Xes to table it.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) The record wlll so reflect your comments, Senator Geo-Karis. Senator Demuzioy for what purpose do you riser sir?

Well, as a matter of inquiry, a couple things. First of allr could you tell us what the schedule will be for the remainder of the day, and then secondly, how long are -- do you intend to stay open in arder for introductton of bills after Ne've concluded the appropriate business today?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) SenaEor Demuzio, for a11 practlcal purposes we have nothing but paperwork to do from this point on, and my -- my guess is we will stay open long enough to to afford the Members the opportunity to -- obvlougly, this is the -- the final day of introduction, for those bklls to arrive here and -- and be lntroduced. I don't have a definite time at this point, sir. Le* me -- 1.11 get to you in just a minute. Okay? Senator Raica, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

Thank you, Mr. President. would like to discharge the Senate Environment and Energy Committee frcm hearing Senate Resolution 9, which I am the sponsor, for the purpose of tabling 87  STATE 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 that resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senakor Raica has moved to discharge the Committee on Energy and Environment for further consideration of Amendment <sic>. Is there discussion? Senator -- Senator Raica has moved to table Amendment No. 9 -- to Senate Resolution 9. Those in favorr say Aye. Opposed, Nay. And the anendment is tabled. Senator Demuzlo.

Well, I was just about to ask, are ke tabling the Resoluticn No. 9 or just the amendment thae was proposed to the resolution? - - if you 're -- if you're dolng that: you 're moving to reconsider, sorry -- you 're moving to discharge the committee for the purpose of tabling, you would have two motions before you.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Ladies and Gentlemen, no. Just for clarity, the resolution has been tabled. inadvertently referred to it as Amendment No. 9. The sponsor held up the fingers and I thought that's What he was referrin: to. So the -- the resolution is tabled . Senator Demuzio.

Well, thlnk you have to discharge the committee, and -- noving to discharge the committee, and then you table.

PRESIDING OFPICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senator, I'm I'm reltably informed that that is not necessary to table. Mr. SecreEary, have ehere been any moticns filed?

Yesy Mr. President. Senator Fawell and SenaEor Dillard b0th have filed motlons Wlkh respect to Eenake Bill 211.

PRESIDING OFPICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) 88  STATE OF ILLINOTS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 Mr. Secretary, the Chair requests that these motions be printed on the Calendar. So ordered . Resolutlons.

Senate Joint Resolution 32, offered by Senator Dudycz. (Secretary reads sJR No. 32)

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MATTLAND) Senator Dudycz moves to suspend the rules for the purpose of immediate consideration and adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 32. Those in favor Will say Aye. Opposed: Nay. The Ayes have ie. And the rules are suspended. Senator Dudycz moves the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 32. Those in favor will say Aye. Zpposed: Nay. The Ayes have it, and the resolution is adopted. Committee Reports.

Senator Weaver, Chair of the Committee on Rulesr reports that the following Legislative Measures have been assigned to committees: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Conservation - Senate Bills 665, 666 and to the Committee oa Appropriations - Senate Bill 6787 to the Commitkee on Commerce and Industry - Senate Bllls 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688: 722, 739, 767, 768, 769, 777, 778, 785, 786, 793 and 8057 to the Committee on Education - Senate Amendment to Senate Bill 17, Senate Bills 654, 657, 658, 661, 673, 710, 727, 730 <sic>, 782, 783, 784, 802, 803 #nd 8147 to the Committee on Environment and Energy - Senate Bills 694, 789, 790 and 818; to the Committee on Executive Senate Bills 643, 645, 655, 667, 671, 672, 674, 679, 697, 705, 720, 749, 754, 755, 757, 759: 772, 794, 798, -- or 800, 801, 806, 808, 825, 826 and 8307 to the Committee on Financial Institutions - Senate Bills 660, 681, 795 and 7967 to the Committee on Higher Education - Senate Bills 682, 690, 696, 698, 718 and 7792 to *he Committee on Insurance, Pensions and Lieensed Activities - Senate Bills 651, 653, 669, 680, 693, 695, 712, 717, 89  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 725, 734, 735, 736, 737: 738, 766, 797, 809 and 810; to the Ccmmittee on Judlciary - Senate Bills 640, 652, 664, 676, 691, 692: 699, 704, 721, 732, 741, 747, 750: 787, 792, 812, 813 and 8297 to the Committee on Local Government and Elections Senate Bllls 636, 639, 648, 649, 706, 711: 751, 761, 762r 764, 774, 780, 781, 788, 799, 815, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 827 and 8287 to the Committee on Public Healthr and Welfare Senate Bills 641, 659, 662, 663, 670, 677: 689, 700, 701: 709, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 758, 804, 807, 8l1 and 816: to the Committee on Revenue - Senate Bills 644, 646, 647: 650, 656, 668, 703, 713, 714, 715: 716, 723, 724, 726, 729 and 753; to the Committee on State Government Operations Senate Bills 637, 642, 675, 719, 740, 748, 756 and 7637 and to the Conmittee on Transportation Senate Bills 702, 707, 708, 728, 733r 752, 760, 765, 770, 771, 775, 776 and 817; and Be Approved for Consideration Senate Amendment 2 to Senate Bill 20.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senator Cullerton, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

Yes, I feel llke I'm in Congress, on C-span. Therels nobody here and wefre still in Session. would like to ask permission to table tWo bills of which I am the chief sponsor: Senate Bill 98w dealing with bicyele helmet legislation, and Senate B11l 153.

PRESIDING OFFICJR: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Senatar Cullerton moves that Senate Bills 98 and 153 be tabled. Al1 those ln favor, say Aye. Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it, and the motion -- the motlon to table ls approved. Let ne just respond to Senator Demuzio's earlier question, for those on the Floor and those Who have retired to their office. The Secretary will begin, shortly, reading the introduced bills into *he reeord, and that will be somewhaE of a lengthy process, Would suggest, and so would would urge the Members to get their 90  STATE OF TLLTNOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 ' bills down here for -- for introductionr because upon the conclusion of -- of reading those bills into the recorde this Session will be -- the Senate will be adjourning. We'l1 now . proceed to the Order of Resolutions Consent Calendar. With leave of the Body, al1 those read in today wl11 be added to the Consent Calendar. Mr. Secretary, have there been any objections filed to any resolutions on th9 Consent Calendar? SECRETARY HARRY: No objections have been filed, Mr. President. PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR MAITLAND) Any discussion? Any discussion? If not, the question is: shall the resolutions on the Consent Calendar be adopted. Al1 those in favor, say Aye. Opposed, Nay. The motion carries, and the resolutions are adopted. Ladies and Gentlemen, We have effectively completed our Work for today. The -- the Senate will -- will stay in -- in perfunctory Session as the Secretaries read the -- the introduced bills into the record. For those still cn the Floor and have retired to their offlce, 1et me mention to you that the Senate Will reconvene at noon on Tuesday, March 7th. SECRETARY HARRY: ... tnicrophone cutoffl...reconvene in Perfunctcry Session. On the Order of Introduction of Bl1ls: Senate Bill 907, offered by Senator Walsh. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 908, by Senator Walsh. (Secretary reads title of bl11) Senate Bill 909, by Senator Walsh. (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate Bill 910, by Senators Walsh and Jacobs. (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate Bill 9llr by Senator DeLeo. (Secretary reads title of bill) I 91  STATE 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislatlve Day March 3, 1995 Senate Bill 912, by Senators Philip and Donahue. (Secretary reads title of b11l) Senate Bill 913, by Senator Weaver. (Secretary reads title of bill) Bi11 914, by Senator Donahue. ... (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 915, by Senators Ralph Dunn and Hasara. (Secretary reads tltle of bill) senate Bill 916, by Senator Weaver. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate B11l 917, by Senator Weaver. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 918, by Senaeor Maitland and others. (Secretary reads tttle of bill) Senate Bi11 919, by Senator Donahue. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 920, by Senator Donahue. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 921, by Senator Woodyard. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 922, by Senator Rauschenberger. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 923, by Senators Rauschenberger and Maitland. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 924, by Senator Rauschenberger and others. (Secretary reads title of bl11) Senate Bill 925, by Senators Philip and Dillard. (secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 926, by Senators Butler and Donahue. (Secretary reads title of bi11) Senate Bill 927, offered by Senators Donahuep Madigan and others. 92  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Blll 928: offered by Senators Rauschenberger and Maitland. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 929, offered by Senators Rauschenberger and Mai*land. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 930, offered by Senators Weaver and Donahue. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill offered by Senator Klemm. (Secretary reads tltle of b1ll) Senate Bill 932, by Senator ViveriEo. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 933: by Senator Hawkinson. (Secretary reads ti*le of bill) Senate Bill 934, by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bll1 935, by Senator Dillard . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 936, by Senator Dillard. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 937, by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bl1l 938, by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 919, by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 940, by Senators O 'Malley, Fitzgerald and others. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bil1 941, by Senators Sieben and Watson. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 942, by Senators Sieben and Karpiel. 93  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 943, by Senators O'Malley, Sieben and others. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate B1l1 944: by Senator Watson. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 945, by SenaEor Pe*ka. (Secretary reads title af bill) Senate Bill 946, by Senatar Dillard. (Secretary reads title of b(ll) Senate Bill 947, by Senator Dudycz. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bil1 948, by Senator Klemm . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 949: by Senator Klemm . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 950, by Senatcr Klemm . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi1l 951, by Senator Klemm . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate B1ll 952, by Senatcr Klemm . (Sgcretary reads tiEle of bill) Senate Bill 953, by Senator Rauschenberger. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 954, by Senator O 'Ma11ey. (Secretary reads kltle of bt11) Senate Bill 955, by Senator Klemm . (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate Bill 956, by Senator Klemm . (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate Bill 957, by Senatcr Dillard. (Secretary reads title of bill) Sena*e Bill 958, by Senator Watson. 94  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 (Secretary reads title of bill) i Senate Bill 959, by Senator Watson. (Secretary reads title of bill)

Senate Bill 960, offered by Senator Fitzgerald. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 961, offered by Senatcr Fitzgerald. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi1l 962, offered by Senator Dudycz. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 963, cffered by Senator Fawell. (Secretary reads title of bll1) Senate Bill 964, offered by Senator Garcia. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 965, offered by SenaEor Garcia. (Secretary reads title of bi11) Senate Bill 966, offered by Senators Garcia. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 967, offered by Senatcr Weaver. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 968, offered by Senator Trotter. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 969, offered by Senator Trotter. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 970, offered by Senator O 'Malley. (Secretary reads tltle of bl11) Senate Bill 971, offered by Senators O 'Malley, Petka: Peterson, DeAngelis and Viverito. (Secretary reads title of b11l) senate Bill 972, offered by Senator Donahue. (Secretary reads title of bill) senate Bill 973, offered by Senator Molaro. 95  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislatlve Day March 3, 1995 (Secretary reads title of bill) I ' Senate Bill 974, offered by Senator Molaro. (Secretary read: title of bill) Senate Bill 975, offered by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate B1l1 976, offered by Senators Peterson and Cullerton. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate B111 977: offered by Senator Madigan. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 978, offered by Senator Madigan. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi11 979, offered by Senator Madlgan. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 978 -- pardon me, 980, offered by Senator Madigan. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 981, offered by Senator Maitland. (Secretary reads kitle of bill) Senate Bill 982, offered by Senator Rauschenberger. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 983, offered by Senator Molaro. (Secretary reads title cf bill) Senate Bill 984, offered by Senator Lauzen. (Secretary reads title of bill) SenaEe Btll 985, offered by Senator DeAngelis. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 986, offered by Senator Jacobs. (Secretary reads Eitle of bill) Senate Bill 987, offered by Senatcr Jacobs. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 988, offered by Senator Jacobs. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 989, offered by Senator Cullerton. I E I 96  STATE OF ILLINOIE 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 (Secretary reads Eitle of bill) Senate Bill 990, offered by Senator DeAngelis. (Secretary reads title of bll1) Senate Bill 991, offered by Senator Rauschenberger. (Secretary reads tikle of bill) Senate Bill 992, offered by Senator Donahue. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 993, offered by Senator Palmer. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 994, offered by Senakor -- Senators Barkhausen and Farley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 995, offered by Senator Lauzen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 996, offered by Senator Hendon. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 997, offered by Senators Rauschenberger, Petka, O'Malley and Lauzen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 998, offered by Senator Berman. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 999, offered by Senator Berman. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1000, offered by Senators Lauzen, O 'Malley, Rauschenberger, Syverson and Pitzgerald. (Secretary reads Eitle of bl1l) Senate Bill 1001, offered by Senator Lauzen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1002, offered by Senator Shaw. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1003, offered by Senator Molaro. (Secretary reads title of bill) 97  STATE 0F ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 ! Senate Bill 1004, offered by Senator Pe*erson. (Secretary reads title cf bl11) Senate Bill 1005, offered by Senators O 'Malleyy Karpiel, Sieben and Watson. . ! (Secretary reads title of bill) I i Senate Bill 1006, offered by Senators O 'Malley and Watson. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1007, offered by Senators O'Malley and Dudycz. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1008, offered by Senators Butler -- pardon me, by Senator Butler. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1009, offered by Senatcrs Watson and O 'Malley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi11 -- pardon me, 1010, offered by Senator Demuzio. (Secretary reads title of bill) . Senate Bill 1011, offered by Senator Woodyard. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1012, offered by Senator Woodyard. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1013, offered by Senators Maitland and Donahue. (Secretary reads title of bill) l Senate Bill 1014, offered by Senators O 'Malley, Cronin and i ! Watson . I (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bl1l 1015, offered by Presldent Philip. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bl11 1016, offered by SenaEors Cronin and WaEson. (Secretary reads title of bi11) ! Senate Blll 1017, offered by Senatcr Karpiel. i (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1018: offered by Senators Watson and Karpiel. 98  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Lggislative Day March 3, 1995 (Secretary reads title of bill) j SenateBill1019,offeredby Sena*orCronin. 1 lsecretary reads title of bill) i Senate B11l 1020, offered by Senator O'Malley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1021, offered by Senator Shaw. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1022, offered by Senators Peterson and Trotter. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill -- 1023, offered by Senator Raica. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1024, offered by Senatoc Fawell. (Secretary reads title of b1l1) Senake Bill 1025, offered by Senator Fawell. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1026, offered by Senator Fawell. (Secretary reads title of bl11) Senate Bill 1027, offered by Senator Maitland. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bilt 1028, offered by Senatar O'Mall9y . (Secretary reads' title of bill) Senate Blll 1029, offered by Senator O'Malley . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1030, offered by SenaEors O 'Malley and Karpiel. (Secretary reads title of bill) Eena*e B111 1031, offered by Senator Bowles. (Seeretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1032, offered by Senator Raica. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1033, offered by Senatcr Raica. l (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1034, offered by Senators Palmer and de1 Valle. I 99  STATE 0F ILLIHOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislatlve Day March 3, 1995 (Secretary reads title of bil1) Senate Bill 1035, offered by Senators O'Malley, Karpiel, Lauzen, Butler and DeAngelis. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1036, offered by Senators Syverson and Burzynski. lsecretary reads title of bill) Senate Btll 1037, offered by Senator Madigan. (Secretary reads *ltle of bill) Senate Bill 1038, offered by Senator Hawkinson. (Secretary reads tltle cf bill) Senate Bill 1039, offered by Senator Fawell. (Secretary reads title of bi11) Senate Bill 1040, offered by Senator Garcta . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1041: offered by Senator Garcia. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1042, offered by Senator Garcia. (Secretary reads title or bi1l) Senate Bill 1043, offered by Senator Garcia. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1044, offered by Senator Garcia. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1045, offered by Senator Garcia . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1046, offered by Senator Garcia. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1047, offered by Senator Garcia . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bk1l 1048, offered by Senator Fawell. (:ecreEary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1049, offered by Senator Molaro. (Secretary reads title of bill) 100  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Leglslative Day March 1995 Senate Bill 1050, offered by Senators Philip and Jones. (Seeretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1051, offered by Senakors Philip and Jones. (Secretary reads eitle of bill) Senate Bill 1052, offered by President Philip . (Seeretary reads title of bi11) Senate Bill 1053, offered by Senators Dillard and Lauzen. (Seeretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1054, offered by Senator Madigan. (Seeretary reads tltle of bi11) Senate Bill 1055, offered by Senators Hasara and Demuzio. (Seeretary reads tiEle of btll) Senate B11l 1056, offered by Senators DeAngelis and Demuzio. (Seeretary reads title of bi11) Senate Bill 1057, offered by Senators DeAngelis and Demuzio. (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate Bill 1058, offered by Senator Mahar. (Secretary reads title of bi11) Senate Bill 1059, offered by Senator Mahar. (Secretary reads title of bi11) Senate Bl1l 1060, offered by Senators Butler and Rea. (Seeretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1061, offered by Senators -- Senator Butlêr. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1062, offered by Senator Butler. (Seeretary reads *itle of bill) Senate Bill 1063: offered by Senator Petka. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bl11 1064, offered by Senator Shadid. (Seeretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1065, offered by Senators Molaro and Rauschenberger. 101  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SCSSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Leglslative Day March 3, 1995 (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate B1ll 1066, offered by Senators Klemm and Hasara. (Secretary reads title of b1ll) Senate Bill 1067: offered by Senator Klemm. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1068, offered by Senator Cronin. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi11 1069, offered by Senator O 'Malley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1070, offered by Senator O 'Malley. (Secretary reads title of blll) Senate Bill 1071, affered by Senator O 'Ma11ey. (Secretary reads tktle of bl11) Senake B1ll 1072, offered by Senator O'Malley. (fecretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1073, offered by Senator O 'Malley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1074, offered by Senator O 'Malley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1075, offered by Senator O'Malley. (Secretary reads title of b1ll) Senate Bill 1076, offered by Senator Dlllard. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi11 1077, affered by Senator Dillard. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senake B1l1 1078, offered by Senators Dlllard and PaWê11. (Secretary reads kitle of bill) Senate Bill 1079, offered by Senator Karpiel. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1080, offered by Senator Fawell. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate D1ll 1081, offered by SenaEor Madigan. l02  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bil1 1082, offered by Senator Madigan. (Seeretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1083, offered by Senator Cronin. (Searetary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1084, offered by Senator O fMalley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1085: offered by Senator Woodyard. (Seeretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1086, offered by Senator O 'Ma11ey. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1087, offered by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1089, offered by Senators Dillard and Petka. (Secretary reads title of bil1) Senate B11l 1088: offered by Senators Dudycz, Parker, Raica, Molaro and Farley. (Secretary reads Eitle of bill) Senate Bill 1090, offered by Senator Dudycz. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1091, offered by Senators Petka, Dillard, Thomas Dunnr Cronin, Molaro and Shadid. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1092, offered by Senators Burzynski and Madigan. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1093, offered by Senator DeAngelis. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1094, offered by Senators Fitzgerald and Cullerton. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1095, offered by Senators Severnsy Madigan, Hasara, Bowles, Smith and Demuzio. 103  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legtslative Day March 1995 (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1096: offered by Senator Severns. (Secretary reads title of btll) Senate Bill 1097, offered by Senator Severns. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1098, offered by Senator Dlllard. (Secretary reads title of b$l1) Senate Bill 1099: offered by Senator Dillard. (Secreeary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1100, offered by Senator Petka. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1101, offered by Senator Weaver. (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate Bill 1102, offered by Senator O'Malley. (Secretary reads title of bi1l) Senate Bill 1103, offered by Senator O 'Malley. (Secretary reads kitle of bill) Senate Bill 1104: offered by Senator O 'Malley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1l0S, offered by Senator O 'Malley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1106, offered by Senators Weaver and Rausehenberger. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1107: offered by Senators Weaver and Rauschenberqer. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bl11 1108, offered by Senator Peterson. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1109, offered by Senakors Dudycz, Burzynskie Peterson, OfMalley and Ralph Dunn. (Secretary reads title of bill)  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLX REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day Mareh 3, 1995 Senate Bi11 1110, affered by Senator Molaro. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1111, offered by Senator Rea. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1112, offered by Senator Rea. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1113, offered by Senator Rea. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi11 1114, offered by Senator Rea . (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi11 1115: offered by Senator Rea. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1116, offered by Senator Ralph Dunn. (Secretary reads title of b111) .. . Bil1 1117, offered by Senator Cullerton. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1118, offered by Senator Gareia. (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate Bill 1119, offered by Senator Donahue. (Secretary reads tttle of bill) Senate Bi11 1120, offered by Senator Carroll. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi11 1121, offered by Senator Jacobs. (Secretary reads title of btl1) Senate Bill 1122, offered by Senator Sieben. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1123, offered by Senaeors DeAngelis and Philip. (Secretary reads title of bil1) Senate Bill 1124, orfered by President Philip . (Secretary reads Eitle of bi11) Senate Bill 1125, offered by Senator Peterson. (Secretary reads title of bill) 105  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 Senake Bill 1126, offered by Senator DeAngelis. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi11 1127, offered by Senator Shaw. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1128, offered by Senator Parker. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1129, offered by Senator Dillard. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1130, offered by Senator Rauschenberger. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1131, offered by Senator Rauschenberger. (Secretary reads tëtle of bill) Senate Bill 1132, offered by Senator Rauschenberger. (Secretary reads title of bi1l) Senate Bill 1133, offered by Senator Rauschenberger. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1134, offered by Senator Carroll. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1135, offered by Senator Jacobs. tsecretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1136, offered by Senator Jones. tsecretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi1l 1137, offered by Senator Cullerton. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate B1l1 1138, offered by Senator Severns. (Secretary reads tikle of b111) Senate Bill 1139, offergd by Senator Shadid. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1140, offered by Senators Geo-Karis and Raica. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1141, offered by Senator Berman. (Secreeary reads title of bill) 106  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH CENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legtslative Day March 1995 Senate Bill 1142, offered by Senator Ralph Dunn. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1143, cffered by Senator DeAngelis. (Secretary reads title.of bill) Senate B1ll 1144, offered by Senator Shaw. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1145, offered by Senator Shak. (Secretary reads tëtle of bill) Senate Bill 1146, offered by Senator Dillard. (Secretary reads title of btll) Senate Bill 1147, offered by Senators Cullerton and Berman. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1148, cffered by Senators Berman and Cullertcn. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1149r offered by Senaeors Lauzpn and Peterson. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1150, offered by Senators Lauzen and Peterscn. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate B1ll 1151: offered by Senator Dudycz. (Secretary reads title of bi1l) Senate Bill 1152, offered by Senator Rauschenberger. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1153, offered by Senator Mahar. (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate Bill 1154, offered by Senatcr Pawell. (Secretary reads title of bll1) Senate Bill 1155, offered by Senator Trotter. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1156, offered by Senator Carroll. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1157, offered by Senator Smith. (Secretary reads title of bill) 107  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 Senate Bill 1158, offered by Senators Shadid and Madigan. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1159, offered by Senator Severns. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1160, offered by Senator Severns. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1161, offered by Senators Severns and Demuzio. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1162, offered by Senator Carroll. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1163, offered by Senator Shaw. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1164, offered by Senator Shaw. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1165, offered by Senator Farley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate 3111 1166, offered by Senator Farley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1167, offered by Senator Farley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1168, offered by Senator Farley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1169, offered by fena*or Jones. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1170: offered by 'Senator Jones. (Secretary reads title of bl1l) Senate Bill ll7lr offered by fenakor Jones. (Secretary reads tltle of bill) SenaEe B111 1172, offered by Senator Jones. (secretary reads title of bi1l) Senate Bill 1173: offered by Senator Jones. (Seeretary reads title of bill) l08  STATE OF ILLTNOTS 89TH GEYERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 Senate Bill 1174, offered by Senator Jones. (Eecretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1175, offered by Senator Jones. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1176, offered by Senator Jacobs. (Secretary reads tltle of bill) Senate Bill 1177r offered by Senator Severns. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1178, offered by Senator Palmer. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1179, offered by Senator Farley. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1180, offered by Senator Farley. (secretary reads *itle of bill) Senate Bill 1181, offered by Senator Garcia. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1182, offered by Senator Cullerton. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1133 <ste> (1183), offered by Senator Cullerton. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill -- l1B4, offered by Senators Dudycz, Butler, Walsh and Lauzen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1185, offered by Senator Rauschenberger. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1186, offered by President Philip. (secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1187, offered by Senator Dillard . (Eecretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1188, offered by Senator Dillard. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1189, ofEered by Senator Shaw. l09  STATE OF ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 3, 1995 (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1190, offered by Senator Petka. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi11 1191, offered by Senator O'Ma11ey. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1192, offered by Senator Berman. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1193, offered by Senator Rea. (Secrekary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1194, offered by Senator Rea. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi11 1195, offered by Senators Garcia , Shadid, Carroll, Thomas Dunn and Smith. (Secretary reads title of bl11) Senate Bill 1196, offered by Senator Jones. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bi11 1197, offered by Senator Raica. (Secretary reads title of bill) Sena*e Bill 1198, offered by Senator Cronin. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1199, offered by Senator Ralca. (Secretary reads title of b1ll) Senaee Bi11 1200, offered by Senators O 'Malley and Karpiel. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1201, offered by Senators Dillard and Fawell. (Secretary reads Eitle of bill) Senate Bill 1202, offered by Senators Parker and Bowles. (Secretary reads eitle of b1l1) Senate Bill 1203, offered by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1204: offered by Senators Hasara: Sieben, Dillard and Parker. l10  STATE OP ILLINOIS 89TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 22nd Legislative Day March 1995 (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1205, offered by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1206, offered by Senator Barkhausen. (Secretary reads title of bl11) Senate Bill 1207, offered by Senator Cullerton. (Secretary reads title of bkll) Senate Bill 1208, offered by ienator Fitzgerald. (Eecretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1209, offered by Senator Walsh. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1210, offered by Senator Walsh. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1211, offered by Senator Walsh. (Secretary reads title of bill) Senate Bill 1212, offered by Senator Walsh. (Secretary reads tltle of bill) And Senate Bill 1213, offered by Senator Berman. (Secretary reads title of bill) lst Reading of the bills. Being no further business to come before the Senate, pursuant to *he adjournment resolution, the Senate stands adjourned until Tuesdayr March at the hour of noon. REPORT: TIFLDAY STâIE QF ILLINOIS 96/09/11 PNGE: 001 89TH OENERAL ASSEMBLY 16:18:36 SENATE DAILY IRàNSCRIPTION 0F DEBATE INDEX HARCH 03, 1995 HB-0020 THIRD REZDIPG 38-0098 TABLED 3B-0118 SECOND READING 5B-O150 SECOND READIMG 58-0153 TZBLED 58-0206 HOTl0N SB-0211 HOTION FILED sa-0227 SECOND READING s8-0237 SECOND READING 58-0292 SECOND READING sB-O46J TABLED SB-0730 TZBLED SB-08?1 FIRST READING s8-0832 FIRST READIPG s8-0833 FIRST REàDING 58-083% FIRST REâDING :8-0835 FIRST REâDIKG 58-0836 FIR:T HEADING s8-0837 FIRST READING 58-0838 FIRST REâDTNG 53-0839 BIH:T READING sB-08q0 FiRST READING 3B-08M1 FIRST REàDINQ SB-08#2 FIR:T READING SB-08)3 FIRST READING SB-O8kq FIRST READING SB-08#5 FIRST READING SB-08k6 FIRST READIMG sB-08k7 FIRST READING SB-08#8 FIRST REâDING sB-08R9 FIRST READING 58-0850 FIRST REâDING SB-085: FIRST REZDING s8-0852 PTRST READING :8-0853 FIRST REâDING SB-085R FIRST READIMG s8-0855 FIRST READING :8-0856 FIRST REâDING 58-0857 FIRST READIMG s8-0858 PIRST READING 58-0859 FIRST HEàDING sB-086O FIRST REàDING sB-0861 FIRST READING' 58-0862 FIRST READING 58-0863 FIRST REâDING 58-0864 FIRST REZDING 58-0865 FIRST REàDING 38-0866 FIRST READIMG 58-0867 FIRST REâDING 58-0868 PIRST PEADING 38-0869 FIRST REâDING SB-0870 FIRST READING sa-08?1 FIH:T READING 58-0872 FIRST READIMG SB-08?3 FIRST READING :B-O8?k FIRDT READING s8-0875 FIRST REâDING 58-0876 FIRST READING 58-0877 PIRST READIPC 53-0878 FIRST REâDING 58-0879 FIR3T READING s8-0880 FIRET READING 58-0881 FIHST REâDING 58-0882 FIRST READING REPORT: TIFLDAY 3T2TE 0F iLLINOIS 96/09/11 PAGE: 002 89TH GENERAL âSSEHBLY 16:18:36 SENATE DâELY TRàNSCRIPTiON OF DEBATE INDEX HARCH 03, 1995 58-0883 FIRSI READING SB-088q FIRST REàDING 88-0685 FIRST READING 58-0886 FIRSI READING 58-0887 FIRST READIXG 58-0888 FIRST REZDING 58-0889 FIRST READING SB-0890 FIRST READINC SB-0891 FIRST REâDING 58-0892 FIRST REàDING 58-0893 FIRST RPADING SB-089% FIRST REâDING 58-0895 FIRST PEADING 88-0896 FIRST RKADING 58-0897 FiPST REZDING 58-0898 FIRST READING 88-0899 FIRST HEADING :B-0900 FIRST READING 53-0901 FIRST READING SB-0902 FIRST READING SB-0903 FIRST READING SB-090y FIRST READING SB-0905 FIRST READING SB-0906 FIRST READING . 58-0907 FIRST REZDING SB-0908 FIRST READING 88-0909 FIRST REâDING SB-0910 FIRST READING SB-0911 FIRST REâDING SB-0912 FIRST READING 38-0913 FIRST READIVG SB-091R FIRST READIKG 58-0915 FIRST READING SB-0916 FIRST REâDIMG SB-091T FIRST READING SB-09:8 FIRST REâDING 38-0919 FIRST READING SB-092O FIPST READING SB-0921 FIRST READING 88-0922 FIRST REZDING 58-0923 FIRST READING 38-0924 FIR:T HEADING 58-0925 FIRST READING 58-0926 FIRST READING :8-0927 FIRST READING 58-0928 FIRST READING 58-0929 FIRST READING SB-0930 FIRST READING SB-0931 FIRST REZDING 58-0932 FIRST READING 58-0933 FIRST REâDING 58-0934 FIRST READING 58-0935 FIRST REâDIMG 58-0936 FIRST READING 58-0937 FIRST REâDING 58-0938 FIRST READING 58-0939 FIRST READING SB-09%0 FIRST READING SB-0941 FIRST READING :8-0942 FIR3T READING 58-0943 FIRST READING SB-09RR FIRST REâDING 88-0945 FIR:T HEADING 58-0946 FIRST READING REPORT: TIFLDAY STATE OF ILLIKOIS 96/OS/11 PàGE: 003 89TH GEVERAL ASSEHBLY 16:18:36 SENZTE DAILY TRANSCRIPTION OF DEBATE INDEX HARCH 03, 1995 38-09:7 FIRST SB-09R8 FIRST SB-09M9 FIRST sB-0950 FIRST 58-0951 FIRST :8-0952 FIRST 58-0953 FIRST 38-095: FIRST 58-0955 FIRST 58-0956 FIRST 58-0957 FIRST 58-0958 FIRST 58-0959 FIRST 88-0960 FIR3T SB-D961 FIRST 58-0962 FIRST 58-0963 FIRST SB-096R FiRST 58-0965 FIRST 58-0966 FIRST 58-0967 FIRST 58-0968 FIRST SB-0969 FIRST SB-0970 FIRST 58-0971FIRST 58-0972 FIRST 58-0973 FIRST SB-09Tk FIRST 58-0975 FIRST 58-0976 FIRST 58-0977 FIRST 58-0978 FIRST :8-0979 FIRST SB-0980 FIRST SB-0981 FIRST 58-0982 FIRST 58-0983 FIRST SB-098k FIRST 58-0985 FIRST 58-0986 FIRST 58-0987 FIPST s8-0988 FIR>T SB-0989 FIRST SB-0990 'FIRST SB-0991 FIRST SB-09S2 FIR3T 58-0993 FIRST 58-0994 FIRST 58-0995 FIRST 58-0996 PIRST SB-099? FIRST 58-0998 FIRST 58-0999 FIRST SB-1000 FIRST SB-1001 FIRST SB-1002 FIRST 3:-1003 FIRST SB-1004 PIRST SB-10O5 FIRST SB-1006 FIRST SB-1007 FIRST sB-1008 FIRST SB-1009 FIRST SB-1010 FIRST REPORT: TIFLDâY STATE OF ILLINOIS 96/09/11 PâGE)0O# 89TH GENERAL ASSEHBLY 16:18:36 SENATE DAILY TRZNSCRIPTIGN OF DEBâTE INDEX HARCH 03, 1995 SB-1011 FIRST READING SB-1012 FIRST REâDING SB-1013 FIRST READING 3B-1014 FIRST READING SB-1015 FIRST REZDING SB-1016 FIRST READING 5B-1O17 FIRST REZDING SB-1018 FIRST REZDING sB-1019 FIRST RPADINC 3B-1020 FIRST REZDING SB-1021 FIRST READING :3-1022 FIRST REZDIKG SB-:023 FIRST READING 33-102: FIRST READING SB-1025 FIRST REâDING SB-1026 FIRST READING SB-1027 FIRST REâDING 38-1028 FIRST READING :8-1029 FIR8T REZDING SB-1030 FIR8T RE&DING SB-1031 FIRST READING SB-1032 FIRST REàDING SB-1033 FIRST READING SB-1O34 FIRST READING 58-1035 FIRST READING 58-1036 FIPST READING SB-1037 FIRST READING SB-1038 FIRST REàDING SB-1039 FIRST READING SB-10M0 FIRST READIPG SB-1041 FIRST REâDfNG SB-10q2 FIRST READING SB-10M3 FIPST PEADING SB-IORy FIRST READING SB-10R5 FIRST RE&DING SB-10k6 FIRST READING SB-10M7 FIRST READING SB-1O#8 FIRST RPADING SB-10R9 FIRST READING SB-1050 FIRST READING SB-1051 FIRST READING SB-105; FIRST READING SBw1053 FIRST READIMG SBi105R FIR3T READING 88-1055 FIR8T READING SB-1O56 FIRST RE&DING SB-1057 FIRST READING SB-1058 FIRST READING SB-1059 FIRST READING SB-1060 FIRST READING SB-1O61 FIRST READIMG :8-1062 FIHST READING 58-1063 FIRST READING SB-106k FIRST READING SB-1065 FIRST READING SB-1066 FIRST READIMG 5B-1O6; FIR3T READING SB-1O68 FIRST READING 58-1069 FIRST REàDING SB-1070 FIR:T READING SB-107q FIRST REàDING sB-1072 FIRST READING SB-1073 FIRST READING :3-1074 FIRST READING REPORT: TIFLDAY STATE OF ILLIMQI3 96/09/11 PZGE: 005 89TH GENERAL ZSSEHBLY 16:18:36 SFNATE DâILY TRANSCRIPTIQK OF DEBATE INDEX HARCH 03, 1995 SB-1OT5 FIRST SB-1076 FIRST SB-1077 FIRST SB-1078 FIRST SB-10?9 FIRST 53-1080 FIRST SB-1081 FIRST SB-1082 FIRST 58-1083 FIRST SB-108y FIRST 38-1085 FIRST SB-1086 FIRST 3B-1087 FIRST SB-1088 FIRST SB-1089 FIRST SB-1090 FIRST 3B-1091 FIRST SB-1092 FIRST SB-109J FIRST SB-1094 FIR8T 58-1095 FIRST SB-1096 FIRST 3:-1097 FIRST 38-1098 FIRST 38-1099 FIRST SB-1100 FIRST SB-1101 FIRST SB-1102 FIR3T SB-1103 FIRST sB-1104 FIRST SB-1105 FIRST SB-11O6 FIRST 3B-11Q7 FIRST SB-1108 FIRST 3B-1109 FIRST SB-1110 FIRST Sa-1111 FiRST SB-1112 FIRST sB-11)3 FIRST SB-111k FIRST SB-1115 FIRST sp-1116 FIRST SB-1117 FIRST SB-1118 FIRST SB-1119 FIRST 3B-1120 FIRST SB-1121 FIRST SB-1122 FIRST SB-1123 FIRST SB-1124 FIRST 58-1125 FIRST SB-1126 FIRST SB-1127 FIRST SB-1128 FIRST 38-1129 FIRST SB-1130 FIRST SB-1131 FIRST SB-11J2 FIRST 38-1133 FIRST SB-113M FIRST SB-1135 FIRST 38-1136 FIRST SB-1137 FIRST 38-1138 FIRST REPORT: TIFLDAY STATE OF ILLINOIS 96/09/11 PAGE: 006 89TH GENERAL ASSEHBLY 16:18:36 SENATE DAILY TRANSCRIPTION OF DEBATE INDEX HARCH 03, 1995 SB-1139 FIRST REâDING SB-1140 FIRST READING SB-11%1 FIRST READISG SB-11)2 FIRST READING sB-11%3 FIRST READING SB-114k FIRST READIMG SB-11M5 FIRST READING SB-11R6 FIRST READING SB-11M7 FIRST READING 58-1148 FIRST READING SB-1149 FIRST READING SB-1150 FIRST READING SB-1151 FIRST READING 38-1152 FIRST READING SB-1153 FIRST REZDING SB-115V FIRST READING 88-1155 FIRST REâDING SB-1156 FIRST READING SB-1157 FIRST READING SB-1158 FIPIT READING SB-1159 FIRGT READING SB-1160 FTRST READING :B-1161 FIRST READING SB-1162 FIRST READING SB-1163 FIRST REâDIMG 3B-116k FIRST BEZDING SB-1165 FIRST READING SB-1166 FIRST REâDING 38-1167 FIR8T READING SB-1168 FIRST READIMG sB-1169 FIRST REâDIMG SB-1170 FIRST REZDING SB-1171 FIRST READING SB-1172 FIRST REâDING 88-1173 FIRST READING sB-1174 FIRST READING sB-1175 FIRST READING SB-1176 FIRST READING SB-1177 FIRST READING sB-1178 FIRST READING SB-1179 FIRST READING 3B-)180 FIRST READIMG SB-1181 FIRST READING 83-1182 FIRST NEADING SB-1183 FIRST READING SB-118R FIRST READING 3B-1185 FIH3T REâDING 58-1186 FIRST READING s8-1187 FIRST READING SB-1188 FIRST READING SB-1189 FIRST READING 38-1190 FIRST READING sB-1191 FIRST REâDING SB-1192 FIRST READING 38-1193 FIRST READING SB-119V FIRST HEâDING sB-1195 FIRST READING 38-1196 FIRST READING sB-119T FIRST READING sB-1198 FIRST READING SB-1199 FIRST READING 3B-1200 FIRST REâDIMG 3B-1201 FIRST READING 58-1202 FIRST REZDING REPORT: TIFLDàY STATE OF ILLINOIS 96/09/11 PâGE:007 89TH GENERAL ASSEXBLY 16:18:36 3ENATE DZILY TRANSCRIPTION OF DEBATE INDEX MARCH 03, 1995 SB-1203 FIRST REâDING PâG; 110 SB-120% FIRST READING PâGE 110 ! SB-1205 FIRST READING PâG6 111 SB-1206 FIRST READIKG PAGE 111 SB-1207 FIRST READING PACB 111 1 SB-1208 FIRST READIMG PAGE 111 1 38-1209 FIRST READIPG PAGB 111 I SB-1210 FJRST R6ADIMG PAGE 111 ! SB-1211 FIRST REZDING PAGE 111 1 SB-1212 FIRST REZDING PAGE 111 ! SB-:213 FIRST REZDINO PAGE 111 1 SR-O0O9 TABLED PAGE 87 I SJR-00J2 ADOPTED PAGE 89 I 8JR-0032 RESOLUTIOM OFFERED PAGE 89 I I SUBJECT HâTTER ! ! SENATE T0 ORDER-PRESIDENT PHILIP PAGE 1 I PRZYER-THE REVEREND HRS. JANE FERGUSON PAGE 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANEE PZGE 1 I JOURNàLS-POSTPONED PZGE 1 ! COHMITTEE REPORTS PAGE 1 ' MESSAGE FROH THE HOU3E PAGE 2 l SENATE STâNDS IN RECESS PAGE 5 ' SENATE RECONVENES PAGE 5 COHMITTEE REPORT PAGE 89 ! RESOLUTIOVS COKS6'CT CZLENDâB-ADOPTED PAGE 91 ' ADJOURNMEMT PAGE 111 ! I 1 I . I . I I I ! ! I I I I I I I I 1 1 I ' I j I !