Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> HELLO. I AM JAK TICHENOR.
WELCOME TO THIS SPECIAL VETO SESSION EDITION OF "ILLINOIS LAWMAKERS."
WE ARE COMING TO YOU FROM THE SPEAKER'S GALLERY HERE IN THE ILLINOIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THE BIG NEWS THIS WEEK IN SPRINGFIELD, OF COURSE, IS THAT ILLINOIS WILL BECOME THE 15TH
STATE IN THE NATION TO LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE, BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT A BIT LONGER
TO LEARN WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH PENSION REFORM IN THE STATE.
WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN THE PROGRAM WITH A NEWSMAKER INTERVIEW WITH NEW LEADER OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS
IN SPRINGFIELD, STATE REPRESENTATIVE JIM DURKIN. GOOD TO HAVE YOU ON THE PROGRAM.
THANKS, JAK. GLAD TO BE HERE.
>>ESPECIALLY IN THIS NEW ROLE FOR YOU. >>IT IS EXCITING.
THANK YOU. LET'S TALK, FIRST OF ALL, ABOUT THE JOB AS
LEADER OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS, 47 STRONG NOW.
YOU'D LIKE TO REBUILD THAT NUMBER AND MAKE YOURSELVES A LOT MORE COMPETITIVE.
>>ABSOLUTELY. >>THAT'S A PRIORITY.
WHAT YOU SAID 47 STRONG. AND WE NEED TO EMPHASIZE STRONG BECAUSE WE
ARE VERY UNITED. WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS LITTLE INTERNAL
SCRUM OVER THE SUMMER, MYSELF AND RAYMOND POE WERE VYING FOR THE SAME POSITION.
WE WALKED OUT OF THE MEETING ROOM UNANIMOUS, WHERE RAYMOND POE ELECTED ME.
SOMETIMES THESE ARE NOT AS DOCILE AND COOPERATIVE, AND EVEN IN THE LAST TIME WHEN THERE WAS A
TRANSITION AFTER LEE DANIELS LEFT, THERE WERE STILL HARD FEELINGS THAT CARRIED ON FOR YEARS.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT. IT IS 47 STRONG, AND 47 UNITED ALSO.
>>IT IS INTERESTING AND DIVERSE CAUCUS IN THE AREA YOU ARE REPRESENTING AROUND THE SUBURBS,
OF COURSE AND OUT TO THE WEST, AND NORTHWEST AND THEN DOWNSTATE LARGELY, YOU HAVE A LOT
OF REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBERS DOWNSTATE. HOW DO YOU TIE ALL THESE FOLKS TOGETHER?
>> WELL, I THINK IT IS JUST I HAVE TO LOOK AT MY BACKGROUND.
I HAVE RUN AS A CANDIDATE STATE-WIDE BACK IN 2002.
I HAVE TRAVELED THE STATE EXTENSIVELY, DEVELOPED RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDIVIDUALS IN ALL CORNERS
OF THE STATE. I HAVE RUN TWO PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS IN ILLINOIS,
AND WHAT IT HAS DONE IS MADE ME--ALLOWED ME AND, THANKFULLY, MADE ME GROW AS AN INDIVIDUAL,
GET A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE ATTITUDES WE HAVE IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE STATE.
I LIVE IN THE SUBURB, PEOPLE THINK OF THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
MY JOB IS TO RESPECT THE OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES OF MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE,
FROM THE REGIONS AND AREAS ON ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE.
YOU LOST SEVEN MEMBERS IN THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE.
YOU HAD A MAP DRAWN BY DEMOCRATS. YOU HAD BARACK OBAMA AT THE TOP OF THE TICKET,
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO TURN THAT TIDE IN THE NEXT GO-AROUND?
>> RIGHT NOW WE ARE DOING A VERY GOOD JOB WITH OUR CANDIDATE RECRUITMENT.
THERE IS A LOT OF ANXIETY GETTINGS GOOD CANDIDATES. WE ARE RUNNING UP AGAINST GERRYMANDERED MATH.
WE WERE LEFT BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU THIS, THERE ARE AREAS FOR US TO EXPAND IN DIFFERENT REGIONS, SOUTHERN
ILLINOIS, CENTRAL ILLINOIS, AND IN THE SUBURBS, WE HAVE VERY GOOD CANDIDATES. I AM REALISTIC
ABOUT EXPECTATIONS AS WELL BECAUSE THIS IS A PROCESS.
I HOPE THAT IN NOVEMBER, A YEAR FROM NOW, THAT WE WILL HAVE GREAT RESULTS ON ELECTION
NIGHT. NATIONAL MOOD WILL HELP US ALSO.
THE NATIONAL MOOD FOR THE REPUBLICANS HASN'T BEEN TERRIBLY GOOD COMING OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT
SHUTDOWN ON CAPITOL HILL. YOU ARE STILL SOMEWHAT OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM,
AT LEAST THE TIDE OF SOME OF THE SOCIAL ISSUES IN THE STATE.
REPUBLICANS WITH THREE EXCEPTIONS VOTED AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE HERE.
>>YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT HAS A NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED AGAINST IT
AS WELL. SO IT IS A VERY PERSONAL, VERY EMOTIONAL ISSUE
THAT EVERY MEMBER HAD TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION ON.
I RESPECT THE OPINIONS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR AND AGAINST THE ISSUE.
BUT THE BIGGEST SOCIAL ISSUE OF THE DAY IS 9.2% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
TO ME, THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE GOING TO DRIVE HOME ABOUT THE STEWARDSHIP OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE PAST TEN YEARS, PUT US AT RECORD DEFICITS,
BUT PUT THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 9.2, AND SEEMS LIKE IT IS NOT GOING DOWN ANY LOWER.
WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OTHER THREE LEADERS?
>> I HAVE KNOWN THEM FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND I HAVE ALWAYS HAD A RESPECTFUL, CORDIAL
RELATIONSHIP WITH MY SENATOR, CHRIS RADOGNO. WE HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER A LONG TIME. BUT
THE SPEAKER IS SOMEBODY I HAVE WORKED WITH IN THE PAST AS WELL AS JOHN CULLERTON. I CAN
TELL YOU, NO SECRET, WE HAVE BEEN MEETING OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS REGARDING PENSIONS,
AND THE FACT WHEN WE SAY WE MADE PROGRESS, IT MEANS WE HAVE MET.
WE ARE GETTING ALONG. WE ARE DISCUSSING ISSUES. WE ARE FINDING COMPROMISE,
AND I THINK WE ARE MOVING IN A GOOD DIRECTION. WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
I WILL WORK WITH ANYBODY. I WANT TO GET THE ISSUES DONE, AND I WANT
TO WORK WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO GET THE ISSUES DONE.
BEST OF LUCK. GOOD TO HAVE YOU IN THIS POSITION.
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>UP NEXT, WE WILL BE GOING MORE INDEPTH ON
THE QUESTION OF PENSION REFORM IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
>> NEXT UP ON "ILLINOIS LAWMAKERS," A CONVERSATION WITH TWO MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE THAT'S BEEN WORKING ON THE PENSION PROBLEM THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER AND FALL OF
WE ARE JOINED BY THE COMMITTEE'S CO-CHAIRS, SENATOR KWAME RAOUL AND SENATE REPUBLICAN
LEADER MATT MURPHY. GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK ON THE PROGRAM.
THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WERE BASICALLY DEADLOCKED ON TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PENSION REFORM.
THEY WEREN'T GOING ANYWHERE, AND THEY DECIDED TO DUST OFF AN OLD IDEA AROUND HERE CALLED
A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. HOW MANY OF THE OLD IDEAS WERE INCLUDED OR
DID YOU JUST START FROM SCRATCH? >> WE INITIALLY DID AND WHAT I SUGGESTED INITIALLY
WHEN WE STARTED THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, SINCE WE WERE AT A STALEMATE WITH THE TWO
BILLS, SENATE BILL 1 AND SENATE 2404, THAT PERHAPS WE SHOULD START BY EMBRACING A DIFFERENT
FRAMEWORK TO GET THE CONVERSATION GOING AND TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE COULD ACHIEVE THE
NECESSARY SAVINGS AND GUIDE OURSELVES TO SOLVENCY IN OUR PENSION SYSTEM AND TO A POINT WHERE
WE WEREN'T CROWDING OUT EXPENDITURE ON THE NEEDED SERVICES THAT WE NEED TO INVEST IN,
IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. WE DID THAT.
>>SENATOR MURPHY, YOU TOOK A LOT OF TESTIMONY. YOU DID HEAR A LOT OF THE SAME IDEAS, BUT
THERE WAS A PROPOSAL THAT CAME OUT FOR THE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS AROUND THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS THAT STARTED TO GET SOME MOMENTUM IN THE SUMMER.
>>YEAH, THE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS' PROPOSAL WAS HELPFUL TO PROVIDE SORT OF A THIRD WAY
TO WORK AROUND SORT OF DUG IN LAGER HEADS WE WERE AT WITH THE TWO PARTICULAR BILLS,
THAT GAVE US SENATOR RAOUL INDICATED GAVE US THE FRAMEWORK TO WORK FROM TO START TO
NEGOTIATE SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY COULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH, BUT THAT STILL MEANINGFULLY
ADDRESSED PROBLEM. >>ONE OF THE BIGGEST AREAS YOU HAD TO ATTACKING
AND THIS IS THE AREA THAT'S BEEN OUT OF CONTROL, IF YOU WILL, FOR MANY YEARS, 3% COMPOUNDED
COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT THAT RETIREES ALL EARN.
IT IS AN EARNED BENEFIT. OBVIOUSLY, THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY KEEP
THAT, BUT THIS IS AN AREA THAT YOU DID SOME WORK ON, AND YOU TOOK A DIFFERENT APPROACH
WITH THAT. WHAT HAVE YOU AGREED UPON TO DO WITH THAT
AREA? >> WHAT WE DID IN ORDER TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION
AND MOVE IT FORWARD, AS SENATOR MURPHY INDICATED, WE EMBRACED THE FRAMEWORK OF THE UNIVERSITY
PRESIDENT. THE MAIN COMPONENT OF THE FRAMEWORK HOW THEY
DEALT WITH THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS. IN THEIR INITIAL PROPOSAL, IT WAS TO HAVE
-- COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT BE HALF OF CPI COMPOUNDED.
WE TOOK THAT, AND WE STARTED TOYING WITH IT A LITTLE BIT, APPLYING A CAP TO IT, AS WELL
AS THE SUGGESTIONS OF APPLYING A FLOOR TO THAT, SUCH THAT IF INFLATION WENT DOWN TOO
LOW, THAT WE WOULDN'T BE PUNISHING THE -- >>THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST A 1% GUARANTEE INCREASE,
BUT NO HIGHER CAPPED AT 4%, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT WAS WHERE WE WERE AT SORT OF THE LAST
POINT WHERE THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WAS KICKING AROUND THE PROPOSAL.
>>THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS THERE HAD BEEN TALKS ABOUT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT INCREASING EMPLOYEE
CONTRIBUTIONS OVER THE COURSE OF A PERSON'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE STATE TO HELP BOLSTER
THE NUMBERS. BUT YOU TOOK A DIFFERENT APPROACH AND ACTUALLY
DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF THE EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION BY ONE PERCENT.
IT SORT OF WHAT THE OPERATIVE WORD IS "CONSIDERATION" TO GIVE THAT PERSON SOMETHING BACK.
YES, PART OF THE DEBATE WHEN WE WERE DEALING WITH THE COMPETING PROPOSALS, CENTERED AROUND
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY OF CHANGES WE MADE GIVEN THE PENSION PROTECTION CLAUSE IN
OUR CONSTITUTION. THE THOUGHT WAS TO DO A DECREASE IN EMPLOYEE
CONTRIBUTION AS CONSIDERATION TO BOTH THE ARGUMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHATEVER
WE CAME UP WITH AT THE CONFERENCE. >>WERE REPUBLICANS ON BOARD WITH THAT, SENATOR
MURPHY? >> YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS COUNTER- INTUITIVE
WHEN YOU TALK TO PEOPLE TO SAY WE HAVE A PENSION FUNDING PROBLEM, AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
THE EMPLOYEES WHO GET THE PENSIONS PAID LESS. THERE WAS SOME INITIAL CONCERN WITH THAT CONCEPT
ESPECIALLY SINCE THE UNIONS THEMSELVES AGREED TO PAY MORE. BUT THE CONSIDERATION ARGUMENT
IS A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT. IF WE ARE GOING TO DO MEANINGFUL BENEFIT REFORM,
IF I WERE ARGUING THIS CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF I
HAD A COUPLE OF ARGUMENTS WHERE SUCH AS THIS ONE WHERE IF YOU ARE GETTING LESS AS A PENSION
BENEFIT, WE ARE CHARGING YOU LESS, THAT HAS SOME SYMMETRY TO IT, AND MIGHT HELP THE SUPREME
COURT FIND A NECESSARY REFORM. >>IT WAS MORE -- IT WAS LESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
AS I HEARD ONE PERSON PUT IT, THAN PERHAPS THE OTHER APPROACHES.
DO YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE GOING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT?
>> I DON'T WANT TO CHARACTERIZE, ULTIMATELY IT IS THE COURT'S DECISION TO MAKE, AND I
AM CERTAIN WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH AS A FINAL BILL WILL BE CHALLENGED, AND THE COURTS WILL
MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER IT PASSES CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER. MY OPINION IS TO, WHETHER
IT IS MORE LIKELY OR LESS LIKELY THAN OTHER THINGS TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL, WHAT WE HAVE
IS WE REACHED A POINT WHERE WE HAD TO COMPROMISE AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING BECAUSE DOING NOTHING
WAS NOT AN OPTION. WELL, BUT TO THE GOVERNOR'S POINT OF VIEW,
YOU WEREN'T GETTING MUCH ACCOMPLISHED SO HE VETOED YOUR SALARIES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
SUMMER. >>YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I CAN GIVE
CREDIT TO THE GOVERNOR FOR IS COMING UP WITH THE IDEA OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.
BUT WHEN THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE STARTED OUR WORK, THAT WAS NOT EVEN A DISTRACTION
TO US DOING OUR WORK. I DON'T THINK IT HELPED US, BUT IT DIDN'T
STOP US FROM DOING OUR WORK. THE PLEASING THING ABOUT WORKING WITHIN THE
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, I THINK IT IS WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE.
WE WERE WORKING IN A BIASED PARTISAN MANNER TO COMPROMISE TOWARDS A SOLUTION.
YOU STARTED SCORING THESE PLANS, THESE PROPOSALS, MEANING YOU ARE TAKING THEM TO THE ACTUARIES
WITH THE DIFFERENT PENSION SYSTEMS. IS THE $138 BILLION SAVINGS OVER 30 YEARS,
GENERALLY AGREED UPON? >> NO, I WOULDN'T SAY IT IS.
I THINK GETTING TO THE 138 WAS A BI-PRODUCT OF THE TYPE OF NEGOTIATIONS WITHIN THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE THAT SENATOR RAOUL JUST REFERENCED. THERE HAS BEEN A GOOD BACK AND FORTH.
I MEAN AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, I THINK THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE I HAVE KIND OF CHARACTERIZED IT
AS WE BROUGHT THIS ISSUE INSIDE THE TEN YARD LINE, AND AT THIS POINT WE ARE GOING TO GET
SOME HELP FROM THE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS TO SEE IF WE CAN COLLECTIVELY PUNCH IT INTO THE
END ZONE AND GET IT RESOLVED. >>THERE WERE ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS BY THE REPUBLICANS,
I WOULDN'T SAY AT THE LAST MINUTE, BUT IN THE DISCUSSIONS THAT THROUGH THINGS OFF TRACK.
>>TO BE FAIR, WE STARTED OUT WITH WIDE ARRAY OF OPTIONS. BUT TO KEEP THE BALL MOVING, WE
FOCUSED ON THINGS THAT WE COULD AGREE UPON TO SUBMIT FOR SCORING.
THAT DIDN'T TAKE EVERYTHING OFF THE TABLE. SO WE GOT TO A POINT -- AND IT WAS PERSONALLY
FRUSTRATING FOR ME AT THAT POINT, BUT YOU MOVE ON IN THE INTEREST OF GETTING THINGS
DONE. >>SO NOW THE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS, FOUR TOPS,
CONFERENCE LEADERS WITH LOOKING A THE THIS, AND THEY CAN GET SOME THINGS DONE.
WHEN ARE WE EXPECTING TO HEAR BACK FROM THEM? >>THEY HAVE BEEN MEETING OVER THE LAST COUPLE
OF WEEKS, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THOSE HAVE BEEN PRODUCTIVE MEETINGS.
THERE WERE SOME ISSUES LEFT TO BE RESOLVED, AND I THINK THEY ARE WORKING THROUGH THEM.
I AM HOPEFUL THEY ARE WORKING THROUGH THEM. YOU MADE REFERENCE, JAK, TO THE SCORING PROCESS
FROM THE ACTUARIES. IT TAKES WHAT IS, TO ME, A FRUSTRATINGLY LONG
AMOUNT OF TIME-- I AM NOT AN ACTUARY, TO GET NUMBERS BACK.
WE ARE ALL TOLD THAT THINGS THEY ARE HAVING SCORED RIGHT NOW CAN BE THE FRAMEWORK FOR
A FINAL RESULT. I DON'T THINK IT IS OVER THE TOP TO SUGGEST
THAT SOMETHING COULD COME TOGETHER BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.
>>SPEAKER MADIGAN SAID EARLIER THIS WEEK THAT IT WOULD BE HIS HOPE THAT YOU MIGHT BE BACK
RIGHT AFTER THANKSGIVING. DO YOU THINK THAT IS LIKELY?
>> WELL, I AM HOPEFUL. YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN WANTING TO DO THIS FOR
MONTHS. I PREDICTED EARLIER ON THAT WE WOULD BE BACK
(LAUGHING) >>BUT I WAS WRONG.
I AM PROBABLY MADE ANOTHER PREDICTION IN SEPTEMBER. BUT I THINK WE WILL GET THIS THING DONE.
>> WE HAVE KIND OF RUN OUT OF SPORTS ANALOGIES, FIRST AND GOAL, AND WHATEVER.
>>OH, YEAH. ESPECIALLY FOR SENATOR RAOUL WHO HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED IN THIS, WE CAN SEE A PATH. SOMETIMES THINGS MORE A LITTLE MORE SLOWLY
THAN WE WOULD LIKE, BUT THERE HASN'T REALLY BEEN A DAY SINCE THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
WAS STARTED THAT I FELT LIKE WE DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD, AND THAT'S STILL TRUE.
THAT'S WHERE THE OPTIMISM COMES FROM. >>SENATOR RAOUL, SENATOR MURPHY, THANKS VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR TIME ON "ILLINOIS LAWMAKERS." WE APPRECIATE THIS VISIT.
UP NEXT, REACTION TO THIS WEEK'S HISTORIC VOTE ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE AT THE ILLINOIS
STATE CAPITOL. A BILL LEGALIZING SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS ON
ITS WAY TO GOVERNOR PAT QUINN'S DESK AT THE CAPITOL.
JOINING US NOW TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE HARDEST FOUGHT LEGISLATIVE BATTLES IN RECENT MEMORY
ARE THE BILL'S CHIEF SPONSOR, REPRESENTATIVE GREG HARRIS OF CHICAGO AND REPRESENTATIVE
JOE SOSNOWSKI FROM ROCKFORD. GOOD TO HAVE YOU BOTH, GENTLEMEN.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE YOU SET TO WORK ON EVER SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN
IN THIS CHAMBER. HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE AT THIS POINT IN THE BATTLE?
>> IT IS GOOD THIS HAPPENED, BUT IT IS MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE THOUSANDS OF ILLINOIS FAMILIES
WHO NOW KNOW THAT THEIR RELATIONSHIPS ARE BEING RECOGNIZED, THEIR FAMILIES ARE BEING
PROTECTED, AND THEY ARE BEING TREATED EQUALLY IN THE EYES OF THE LAW ALONG WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS.
THE SENATE PASSED THIS BACK IN FEBRUARY, VALENTINE'S DAY, MADE ITS WAY OVER TO THE HOUSE. BUT ITS
FUTURE HERE BY NO MEANS CERTAIN. WELL, SURE, AND SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES WANTED
EXTRA TIME TO GO HOME AND TALK TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS OVER THE COURSE OF THE SUMMER, AND THEN A
REALLY AMAZING THING HAPPENED WHEN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DECLARED IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SAME SEX COUPLES IF THEY ARE LEGALLY
MARRIED IN THEIR OWN HOME STATE. SO PEOPLE REALIZED WHAT WAS AT STAKE HERE.
PEOPLE BEING DENIED SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS, PENSION BENEFITS.
IF A SERVICE MEMBER WAS OVERSEAS AND WAS INJURED OR KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY, HIS OR HER
PARTNER WOULD NOT EVEN BE NOTIFIED. FOLKS THOUGHT THAT WAS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO
GO. >>HOW IMPORTANT WAS POPE FRANCIS' PRONOUNCEMENTS
ON THE ISSUE OF GAY RIGHTS? >> THE SPEAKER CERTAINLY ADDRESSED HOW HE
FELT ABOUT THE POPE'S COMMENTS. I AM NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC.
BUT I CERTAINLY APPRECIATED WHAT THE POPE HAD TO SAY ABOUT WE SHOULD ALL BE CAREFUL
NOT TO JUDGE EACH OTHER, AND WE SHOULD GO FORTH WITH LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING ON EACH
OTHER, AND THAT'S THE LESSON WE SHOULD FOLLOW. >>REPRESENTATIVE, YOU WERE THE ONLY NO VOTE.
ONLY THREE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES FROM THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS.
TWO MEMBERS WHO HAD BEEN OUT IN FRONT OF THE BILL FOR SOME TIME, ED SULLIVAN AND RON SANDACK,
AND OF COURSE A LITTLE LATER YOUR FORMER LEADER, TOM CROSS, COMES OVER AND SUPPORTS IT.
HOW WAS THE BILL PLAYING ITSELF OUT ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE HERE?
>> WELL, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT, YOU LOOK AT THE VOTE.
OBVIOUSLY, IT IS A VERY DIVISIVE ISSUE IN THE SENSE THERE IS TWO PERSPECTIVES ON IT.
THERE IS CERTAINLY THOSE, SUCH AS MYSELF, THAT ARE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE DEFINITION
OF MARRIAGE BEING BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, AND OBVIOUSLY THERE IS THE OPPOSITE
VIEWPOINT IN ADDITION. ONE THING IMPORTANT IN THIS DEBATE, NOW THAT
WE ARE MOVING FORWARD, TO LOOK AT AND MAKE SURE WE ARE PROTECTING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
AND FREEDOMS. THOSE BUSINESS OWNERS, CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES
AND MOSQUES WILL HAVE HALLS ATTACHED OR AFFILIATED WITH THEIR PARTICULAR RELIGION, THAT THEY
STILL HAVE THOSE PROTECTIONS IN ORDER TO HOLD THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE LOOK FORWARD TO MOVING FORWARD ON THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE A WHOLE SLEW
OF OTHER ISSUES TO WORK ON IN THE STATE. THIS IS ONE THING I THINK WE HAVE -- IT HAS
BEEN VOTED ON. BOTH CHAMBERS HAD THEIR SAY.
IT GOES TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE NOW, AND WE WILL SEE AS THINGS MOVE FORWARD HOW THIS
PROGRESSES IN ILLINOIS. >>I WOULD JUST ADD TO WHAT THE REPRESENTATIVE
SAID, THE BILL IS CAREFUL TO PROTECT THOSE FAITHS AND DENOMINATIONS WHO DO NOT WISH TO
CELEBRATE OR CONSECRATE MARRIAGES AND GIVES BLANKET IMMUNITY FROM THOSE PARTICULAR FAITHS
FROM HAVING USE THEIR FACILITIES, THEIR PARISH HALLS, COMMUNITY HALLS OR PRIVATE INSTITUTION
FROM KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, HAVING TO HOLD SAME SEX MARRIAGE IF IT IS AGAINST THEIR FAITH.
THAT'S A THING WE ALL VALUE. >>WHAT HAPPENS TO PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS
WHO MAY HAVE RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO CATERING OR SUPPLYING FLOWERS, WHAT HAVE YOU.
>>SURE. >> IF YOU LOOK AT JUST THE ISSUE AND PEOPLE'S
PERSPECTIVES ON IT, IT IS ACROSS PARTISAN AISLE, THERE IS DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS ON THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE. THAT'S A CONCERN.
WE WILL HAVE TO SEE HOW THAT LEGISLATION AFFECTS THOSE BUSINESS OWNERS WHO DO HAVE RELIGIOUS
AND MORAL DIFFERENCE WITH THE LAW THAT WAS PASSED AND WILL THEY BE OFFERED THOSE SAME
PROTECTIONS. A LOT OF THAT WILL BE PLAYED OUT, I THINK,
IN DAY TO DAY LIFE. A LOT WE WILL SEE IN THE COURTS.
MY PERSPECTIVE, WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.
WE DO NEED TO RESERVE THOSE RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES AND HOW IT PLAYS IN THE PRIVATE BUSINESS SECTOR.
CAN A PERSON WHO MAKES CAKES OR DECORATIONS, SAY, I PREFER NOT TO BE PART OF THIS PARTICULAR
CEREMONY? A LOT OF THAT IS SOMEWHAT UNKNOWN BY THE PASSAGE
OF THIS BILL. BUT WE WILL SEE HOW THINGS ROLL OUT IN THE
LEGAL SYSTEM. >>REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, DO THOSE CONCERNS,
COULD THIS BE ADDRESSED LATER IN THE FORM OF WHAT THEY CALL TRAILER LEGISLATION?
>>I THINK THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED FOR DECADES IN ILLINOIS LAW.
THAT IF YOU OPEN UP YOUR BUSINESS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, YOU NEED TO SERVE ALL THE GENERAL
PUBLIC. YOU CANNOT, UNDER ILLINOIS LAW FOR MANY, MANY
YEARS DISCRIMINATE BASED ON RACE, ON RELIGION, ON *** ORIENTATION, ON GENDER.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE ALL UNDERSTAND, THAT PRIVATE BUSINESSES ARE -- WHICH ARE PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATION, ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, BUT FAITH INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS A CHURCH WILL HAVE
SPECIAL PROTECTION. >>WOULD THAT APPLY TO BEING LET'S SAY THE
ISSUE OF SOMEONE HAVING SAME SEX PARTNER IN TERMS OF BEING COVERED BY A SPOUSE'S INSURANCE?
>> YES. PARTNERS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE IF THEY ARE MARRIED,
AND IF THEIR EMPLOYER OFFERS SPOUSAL AND FAMILY COVERAGE, THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED.
IT WOULD REQUIRE IF THEY WERE IN THE HOSPITAL OR IN THE INSENSITIVE CARE UNIT THAT A MARRIAGE
PARTNER WOULD BE ALLOWED TO COME AND SEE THEM. THOSE ARE JUST BASIC DECENCY THINGS WE NEED
TO DO. >>WHAT IF ONE OF THOSE FOLKS WAS EMPLOYED
BY A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION? >>THIS IS WHERE THE COURT HAS BEEN FAIRLY
CLEAR. U.S. SUPREME COURT MOST RECENTLY IN THE CASE
OF HANNA TABOR VERSUS EVANGELICAL CHURCH OF AMERICA SAID THOSE PERSONS, AND I AM NOT A
LEGAL SCHOLAR, BUT THOSE PERSONS EMPLOYED BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, WHO ADVANCE OR
TEACH THE FAITH, CERTAINLY HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF PROTECTIONS AND WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE
FOR SAME SEX BENEFITS IF THEIR FAITH SO CHOSES, BUT, FOR INSTANCE, SOMEBODY WHO WAS A CUSTODIAN
IN A HOSPITAL WHICH MIGHT BE AFFILIATED WITH A CHURCH, PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THOSE
KIND OF THINGS. >>GOVERNOR QUINN HAS INDICATED HE WILL SIGN
THE BILL. EFFECTIVE DATE ON THIS IS ACTUALLY SOME MONTHS
OFF. >>WHEN ALL NEW LAWS TAKE EFFECT IN ILLINOIS.
>>THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION, SENATOR DON HARMON, DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUE OF YOUR'S
IN THE SENATE, HAS INDICATED HE MIGHT SEE IF THERE IS A WAY YOU CAN PUSH THAT DATE UP
SO THAT MIGHT HAPPEN AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR WHEN YOU DON'T NEED SUPER MAJORITY TO
PASS SOMETHING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. >>FIRST OF ALL, THAT IS THE LAST DAY OF THE
VETO SESSION. WE ARE NOT SCHEDULED TO COME BACK HERE BEFORE
THE FIRST OF THE YEAR. WE WILL CERTAINLY TAKE A LOOK AT SENATOR HARMON'S
BILL. BUT RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE WANT TO FOCUS ON IS GETTING THE BILL SIGNED INTO LAW SO
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES WILL FINALLY FEEL EQUAL WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS.
>>THERE WERE MANY POIGNANT MOMENTS OUT ON THE FLOOR AS THIS DEBATE WAS JOINED.
PROBABLY NONE MORE SO THAN WHEN REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI JACOBSON CAME IN FROM THE HOSPITAL,
HOSPICE WHERE HER NOW LATE SON WAS LAYING, TO CAST A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL.
>>I HAD TALKED TO REPRESENTATIVE JACOBSON THAT MORNING.
SHE HAD TALKED, I GUESS, WITH HER FAMILY ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AND THEY ALL DECIDED THAT ALL
OF HER CHILDREN AND HER HUSBAND THOUGHT HER BEING HERE TO PROTECT ALL FAMILIES IN ILLINOIS
AND TREAT THEM WITH RESPECT AND DIGNITY WAS SOMETHING SHE OUGHT TO DO.
I CANNOT GIVE ENOUGH -- THERE ARE NOT WORDS TO DESCRIBE HER COURAGE AS A MOM.
>>ONE THING IS FOR SURE, AND I THINK YOU SEE THIS FROM ALL THE LEGISLATORS AND FELLOW COLLEAGUES,
THAT TYPE OF DEDICATION TO THE SERVICE OF THE STATE, THAT'S AN AMAZING THING.
I DON'T KNOW IF I HAD A FAMILY MEMBER IN HER SITUATION, IF I WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT SAME
THING TO TAKE A VOTE I WAS IMPASSIONED ON. BUT TO SEE THAT SACRIFICE ALL OF US MAKE ON
DAY TO DAY BASIS, NO MATTER HOW YOU FELT ON ISSUE, HER DEDICATION IS TRULY AMAZING.
>>NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. I HAVE TO SAY OUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS ARE CERTAINLY WITH THE
JACOBSON FAMILY AT THIS POINT. QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE STATE'S MEDICAID
PROGRAMS. YOU ARE BOTH EXPERTS ON THAT.
YOU CHAIR THE APPROPRIATIONS HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE.
YOU ARE YEAR INTO THE NEW MEDICAID REFORM PROGRAM PASSED EARLIER.
HOW IS IT WORKING? >>I THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS WORKING -- IT
IS LIKE ANYTHING ELSE, A CHANGE THIS BIG, THERE ARE SOME THINGS WORKING BETTER THAN
EXPECTED. THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE NEED TO CONTINUE
TO WORK ON. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES LIKE RESTRICTIONS ON ADULT DENTAL OR RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH MEDICATIONS THAT WE SHOULD REALLY LOOK AT REFINING.
ONE THING I THINK WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY SEEN, AND THINK THIS IS INDICATIVE OF A LOT OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAMS WHEN YOU GET TO A LARGE-SCALE. WE POINTED THIS PROBLEM OUT FOR MANY YEARS,
AND I THINK THERE IS BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON THIS, IS WE ARE LOOKING AT THE SCRUBBING
OF THE MEDICAID ROLLS. TO DATE, WE HAVE LOOKED AT 400,000 THROUGH
A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE THAT IS LOOKING AT WHO IS ELIGIBLE.
OVER 400,000 ANALYSIS, THEY HAVE SEEN 50% OF THEM HAVE BEEN DEEMED INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE
BENEFITS. WHEN WE LOOK AT THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, IT
IS INDICATIVE THAT WE HAVE THOSE BENEFITS AVAILABLE FOR THOSE WHO NEED THEM.
>>THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME ON "ILLINOIS LAWMAKERS." WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE IT.
THAT'S IT FOR THIS SPECIAL FALL VETO SESSION OF "ILLINOIS LAWMAKERS."
WE WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE SITUATION AS TO WHERE PENSION REFORM TALKS MAY GO IN
THE NEXT FEW WEEKS AFTER THANKSGIVING, AS WE ROLL INTO THE HOLIDAYS.
WE WILL PRODUCE ANOTHER PROGRAM ON THAT, WHEN AND IF WE HAVE A RESULT ON THAT.
OTHERWISE, WE WILL BE BACK AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR WITH THE GOVERNOR'S STATE OF THE
STATE SPEECH, LIVE COVERAGE OF THAT, AS WELL AS THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET MESSAGE TO JOINT
SESSION OF THE ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY. GO TO ILLINOISLAWMAKERS.ORG TO FIND OUT THE
LATEST ON THOSE PROGRAMS AND OTHER BACKGROUND ON THE SERIES.
THAT IS IT FOR THIS SPECIAL EDITION. THANKS SO MUCH.
SO LONG FROM SPRINGFIELD.