From State Rep. Dan Ugaste:
Ugaste: GOP Requests Ignored on House Rules
SPRINGFIELD—After Republican requests for changes to the House Rules were ignored today during the first day of legislative session back in the Illinois Capitol, State Representative Dan Ugaste (R-Geneva) released the following statement:
“Today I voted ‘no’ on the proposed House Rules for the 102nd General Assembly.
“House Republicans laid out several changes that we wished to see incorporated in to the House Rules for the 102nd General Assembly.
“These top priorities included
- the rights of members to have their bills called in committee,
- ample notice for the public and lawmakers on the daily legislative schedule,
- a required waiting period for floor amendments, concurrence and budget bills, and
- an increased ability of members to debate legislation on the House Floor.
“These priorities would not only provide greater transparency for Illinoisans, but make for a more efficient and fair legislative process.
“We saw all too well during Lame Duck Session how significant legislation was pushed through at the last minute.
“A rushed process isn’t conducive to good policy, or the honest government the people of Illinois deserve.
“The feedback of residents across Illinois—and for me in the 65th District—is essential to the legislative process.
“They deserve to have an opportunity to understand what we are debating and when we are doing it—but these rules as passed today make that difficult.”
Click here<https://repdurkin.com/illinois-must-break-from-the-past-with-new-house-rules/> for more background on the four House Republican priorities for the House Rules.
= = = = =
From State Rep. Marty McLaughlin:
Rep. McLaughlin Weighs New House Rules
SPRINGFIELD… State Representative Martin McLaughlin (R-Barrington Hills) released the following statement:
“Today, I stand firmly with the House Republican Caucus voting No on HR 72, which implements the new House Rules,” said McLaughlin.
“I came down here to change how we do business in Springfield.
“The shady political practices and back room deals, which had long been championed by Speaker Madigan, must be reformed.
“Speaker Welch told us on his first day that he will listen to our priorities and reach bi-partisan consensus as we move forward.
“I challenge my fellow representatives to have the courage to institute true binding reforms which are in the best interests of the constituents who we serve, not in the personal interests of those who wish to hold on to power.
“The rules proposed by Speaker Welch lack the four highest priorities we brought to the table.
“Especially our highest priority, the Speaker should not be the sole member to determine which bills can even be discussed in committee.
“It looks like the talk of the new wave of leadership was simply rhetoric in the wind.”
Below are the House Republicans four highest priorities for rule changes that were ignored:
1. Rights of Members to have their bills called in Committee
Each member of the House shall have their bills sent to a substantive committee, posted for a vote in a substantive committee, and called for a vote in a substantive committee. All 118 members of the House of Representatives should have the right to have their bill called for a vote before a committee. This change is not mandating that all bills advance from committee. The change simply grants all 118 members the right to an up or down vote on their bills in committee. Give the members an opportunity to move the legislation that they believe is important to their district or the State.
2. Notice to the Members and Public on what will be up for action in committee and on the Floor
Require a Daily Notice on the House Calendar listing all Legislative Measures that the Speaker will call for consideration that Legislative Day. Require a Daily Notice on the House Calendar listing all Legislative Measures that Committee Chairpersons will call for consideration that Legislative Day. Such daily notice will provide transparency to the general public, and grant all members the ability to fully prepare for debate. These are measures that are used in the United States Congress, and provide those in Congress advanced notice of what will be up for business that week. A more prepared legislator allows for more robust and informative debates on matters before the body.
3. Create Waiting Period for Floor Amendments, Concurrence and Budget Bills
Create a reasonable public review period of at least one calendar day before consideration of floor amendments and concurrence motions and budget bills. The Rules would prohibit consideration until the calendar day after notice is posted for a hearing, or the calendar day after the measure is reported directly to the House from the Rules Committee. Current rules allow consideration one hour after the amendment is reported to the floor by the Rules Committee, or require a one-hour posting notice if referred to committee. Under these Rules, the House can be voting on a $40 billion budget with an hour’s notice. Does that really allow a member to truly know what is in that budget? Does the public know what is in it? We need to give everyone the chance to review all pieces of legislation and know what is being voted on in the House before taking final action. We need to be transparent with our actions.
4. Increase the ability of members to debate legislation on the House Floor
In order to provide for a more thorough debate on legislative matters before the House, changes to the House Rules are needed so that those members who wish to debate a matter are given the chance and members receive as much information as possible to make an informed vote. To ensure that this occurs, it should take 71 votes to rule a fiscal note and all other notes inapplicable, a move to previous question must require a recorded vote (rather than voice vote), and a more streamlined debate process implemented. If we want to be the best legislators we can be, we need to be as informed as possible before we vote. A strong and vigorous debate allows that to occur.
Rules are so blase and counterproductive Mr. Ugaste.
Please get with the socialist agenda.
We’ll come up with a fake poll on some issue or procedure, and THAT will become the new rule.
As a white male, you are to be marginalized ….. into oblivion.
You stand in the way of pseudo-progress and transsexual identity, plus you are a damn Christian and homophobic, and, of course, a totally racist Nazi who actually changed his name from Simon Legree VI, to Dan Ugaste in 1983.
“Superminority party complains about supermajority party having control of the legislative process.”
We get it, Shake, democracy is bad.
Sure, that’s exactly what I said. 🙄
Are you also opposed to the way Mitch McConnell ran the US Senate and refused to let any of the bills that came over from the House get a vote?
Alabama, you missed the last few anger Mgmt sessions. (Dorita said “no loss.”)
Are you still on your meds?
Shake, my point was that you’re not addressing whether the rule changes are good or bad, you’re just pointing out that the majority does not agree to them.
I’m not fond of one person holding up a bill.
I think there should be a mechanism to get a bill a floor vote and bypass a committee chair, majority leader, etc.
Prince – who’s angry here? It sure isn’t me.
And no meds for me. Thanks for your concern though. We should definitely all be concerned with mental health and take it seriously.
Correcting – you didn’t make that point.
You made some strawman argument instead, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To your point about bypassing committees, etc.
Why should any bill be able to get to the floor?
My point is that elections have consequences (regardless of party that wins).
I never heard you complain when, say, McConnell refused to hold hearings or votes on Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, or, as I mentioned above, McConnell blocking any floor (or committee!) vote on any of the bills that the House sent him over the last two years.
In my opinion, it is the job of the legislative sponsor (and the advocates of said bill) to build the support to get a bill called and passed out of committee, and then called and passed on the floor.
We have a process in place to vet bills (the rules committee, and then the substantive committee(s)) for a reason.
1. You are again not answering whether it is good or bad just saying elections have consequences. Baby level thinking.
2. I wasn’t commenting on this blog in 2017 so yeah I did not write about Garland… Democrats always assume that people who do not agree with them own time machines and can undo things. I have noticed this.
3. What bill do you have in mind? I don’t follow every bill dude I’m not autistic. And most of this blog is about local politics. I have spoken about Jack Franks having too much power over what gets voted and not voted on though.
4. Everything about this process with committees and what not is all fake, dumb, and arguably not representative. Majority party drawing their own districts. Majority party deciding what bills to bring forward. Kangaroo system, kangaroo country.
No, why should a bill have to get out of a committee???
If a bill has a certain level of support in the whole chamber, it should get a vote.
Simple as that.
That is my opinion and you are not going to change it.
If we had such a mechanism, all your unnamed House bills and Merrick Garland could have gotten a roll call.
Your standard is that everybody has to speak about every bill otherwise they are complacent.
It’s a bs standard that can never be met, and I don’t think Mitch is reading this blog and taking notes anyway.
You are really lecturing the wrong person if you think I don’t criticize Republicans lol
Sigh…
1. I said more than that.
2. Fair enough, we won’t talk about Garland.
3. You don’t need to be autistic to know that McConnell didn’t allow the vast majority of bills to move that came over from the House. Not very interested in naming everyone, because that isn’t the point. The point is that you appear to only complain when one party used their majority but not when the other one does so.
4. I don’t know how/why it is fake just because the majority party controls the process.
You actually aren’t answering my why question at all, other than saying “because!”
But I don’t pretend to expect to change your opinion.
With that said… what is the “certain level of support” that you think a bill should have in order to get a vote?
**Your standard is that everybody has to speak about every bill otherwise they are complacent.**
Once again, a strawman.
I never said that, nor implied it.
Alabama, your arguments are juvenile and non sequiturs. You are an Alinsky type of dangerous trash.