The Illinois General Assembly has had a "reformed" and well-staffed committee system for at least 10 years. That should mean the General Assembly has a strong committee system. But it doesn't. Some bills bypass the committees entirely; others get through with minimal screening. Vehicle bills. Floor amendments. Conference committees. Illinois legislators wield an arsenal of parliamentary weapons to revive and advance their favorite pieces of legislation — with or without committee action. This article explains why the reforms have fallen short of their promise and also points to some pockets of excellence in the committee system.

"THE COMMITTEE system is a joke," says Mike Lawrence of Lee Enterprises, a veteran observer of the Illinois General Assembly. In a September 1983 article, Lawrence charged that the "system smells. Its products often reek." Veteran legislators agree that "the committee system does not work.'' As one representative put it recently, "With conference committees as they are, you might as well forget the committee system. They might as well leave us home until June 30."

Such assessments do not come from outsiders, but from legislators, committee staff, journalists and representatives of interest groups who were interviewed for a recent study done by the Illinois Legislative Studies Center. While there is some accuracy to these views, they are too broadly drawn. The committee system, although far from perfect, does play an important, if secondary, role in the Illinois legislative process.

The views of many of the 31 people, 16 of them legislators, represented in the study (all of whom were promised anonymity) present a puzzle for students of the Illinois legislature, since reforms in the committee system have theoretically increased the effectiveness of the General Assembly in the past 20 years.

Seven years ago, for example, when Bill Day examined the effects of the recommendations made in 1967 by the Illinois Commission on the Organization of the General Assembly (COOGA), he acknowledged the potential for improving legislative performance. In his April 1978 Illinois Issues article, he pointed to the "tremendous enhancement of the capacity of the legislature to play its role as one of the three coordinate branches of state government, by reforming procedure and by equipping legislators to do a good job." Yet the promise has not been realized, and many current assessments of the committee system are negative.

In the 1960s it was widely believed that the state legislatures were weak, and that they could be strengthened only if certain reforms were undertaken. The Citizens Conference on State Legislatures led in stimulating change. In Illinois the drive for reform was spear headed by COOGA, chaired by former Rep. Harold Katz (D., Glencoe). By 1977, according to a special COOGA report, nearly 90 percent of its recommendations were in effect. As early as 1971 the Citizens Conference had ranked the Illinois legislature third among all the states in terms of efficiency and professionalism.

Perhaps the major change in the General Assembly since COOGA has been the development of professional staff for the legislature and its committees. The increasing complexity of issues and problems made this professionalization necessary, and a good committee system should improve the performance of a legislature. Intensive work in committees, carried out by smaller numbers of well-briefed participants, should ensure knowledgeable debate and hearings. The specialized knowledge of staff members should insure more enlightened discussion than is possible when the full body addresses an issue. Yet despite the additions to committee staff, the Illinois legislature has managed to sustain "business as usual," and the expectations that come with the COOGA reforms have not been realized.

In the 1950s Illinois had a remarkably weak committee system, described by Gilbert Y. Steiner and Samuel K. Gove in the major text of the period (Legislative Politics in Illinois, U of I Press, 1960) as "of scant importance." Even though committee performance has undoubtedly improved since then, Alan Rosenthal, in the current leading text on state legislatures (Legislative Life, Harper & Row, 1981) still parrots the old description: "Some committee systems are notoriously deficient. In Illinois they are of scant importance."

Two central questions emerge at this point: Is the portrait of a "notoriously deficient" committee system still accurate? If it is — or to the degree that it is — how can we account for it in the light of the demonstrable reforms? An answer begins to emerge from a consideration of the characteristics of an effective committee system.

May 1984/Illinois Issues/15

Political scientists generally agree on several such characteristics for legislative committee systems:

1.  A committee system should not be easily bypassed — that is, nearly all legislation should be referred to committee. A system cannot be central to the legislative process unless the overwhelming majority of bills go to committee.

2.  An effective committee prevents ill-conceived legislation from reaching the floor. A major problem of many state legislatures, and Illinois is no exception, is the flood of legislation reaching the floor. This is one cause of the end-of-session "log jam."

3.  In an effective system, committees shape legislation — that is they modify and improve the bills that they hear. The purpose of analysis by staff, hearings by committee and debate — when these do not result in the outright rejection of bills — is to iron out problems in proposed legislation.

4.  The work of effective committee systems is respected outside of the committees (i.e., on the floor, in the other body). There is a presumption that the decisions of the committee, negative and positive, should stand.

5.   In the most effective systems, committees do not simply react to individual bills produced by legislators but attempt to anticipate policy problems, to study them and to fashion committee legislation. Much activity of this sort takes place between legislative sessions.

Given those criteria, our examination of the committee process in the Illinois legislature suggests some of the reasons why the system is judged so harshly by most observers and participants. Our analysis of the performance of Illinois committees in these areas comes from information available in three major sources: statistical data concerning committee action on bills from the Legislative Information System; observation of over 100 hours of committee hearings; interviews with more than 30 individual participants in and observers of the Illinois General Assembly.

The committee structure observed was that of the 83rd General Assembly, with 20 standing committees in the Illinois House and 17 in the Senate (excluding its Assignment of Bills Committee). Each house has two appropriations committees, and the Senate has two judiciary committees. Committee workload varies substantially: In the House, for example, the Judiciary Committee received 533 bills while the Financial Institutions Committee received 49. Each committee has at least one majority and one minority staff member, in line with COOGA recommendations. House and Senate members serve on an average of four committees.

Bill referral

In the 1960s as many as 30 percent of the bills introduced into the General Assembly were advanced without reference to committee. Many were non-controversial. Nevertheless, the practice conflicts with the presumption that committees should decide what is and is not controversial. COOGA recommended that "no bills be advanced without reference to committee, except in cases of demonstrable emergency involving irreparable harm." The practice of bypassing committee has been virtually eliminated in Illinois; since the COOGA-inspired reforms, over 97 percent of all legislation introduced has been referred to committee.

The most significant legislation of 1983, the tax increase, bypassed the normal committee system. The original bill, S.B. 1297, sponsored by Sen. James "Pate" Philip (R-23, Elmhurst), was not referred to the Senate Revenue Committee in the normal manner. Instead it was heard by a committee of the whole, and it eventually died on third reading. No House committee heard the revenue increase package at any stage. As matters were finally worked out, the tax increase was tacked onto a "vehicle bill," H.B. 1470, in conference committee and was adopted by both houses on the last night of the session. Political realists argued that this unorthodox procedure was necessary to shield some members, especially of the Senate Revenue Committee, from having to vote on this sensitive issue several times. Others, more critical of the General Assembly's tendency to undermine committees, argued that it "should have been done in the normal way even if in the end the summit would have met, [but] ... it was the best way to protect members." An effective committee should tackle the hard issues as well as the more routine ones, and the failure to do so on the tax increase reveals much about the Illinois committee system.

Table 1
Bill Screening: Average percentage of bills reported favorably from committee,* 1960s to 1980s
Decade House	Senate
1960s 81	83
1970s 63	62
1980s (1981-1983) 46	65
*The percentages are total bills sent to committee divided by bills receiving "do pass" and "do pass as amended" recommendations for the various sessions of the decades. Source: Samuel K. Gove et al., The Illinois Legislature (Urbana: University of Illinois Press (1976) and data collected by the Legislative Information System provided by the Illinois Legislative Council.

Screening

An effective committee system rigorously screens bills. Bill screening reflects the ability of a committee to say "no" in some fashion to ill-conceived legislation and prevents the legislative arteries from being clogged with too many bills.

Formally, Illinois committees have several options when confronted with legislation. To report bills favorably, committees may recommend "do pass" or "do pass as amended." (In the House, noncontroversial bills may be reported on the "consent calendar.") Committees may also recommend bills "do not pass" (or "do not pass as amended") and thereby table them. Finally, many bills are often held in committee or are never called because the sponsor does not wish them to be called.

As we noted, Illinois was notorious for weak screening in the 1960s. Although the situation seems to have improved, the evidence is not to be found in an increase in "do not pass" recommendations from committee. For example, of the 2,786 bills sent to House committees in 1981-1982, 59 received "do not pass" recommendations and 16 "do not pass as amended," for a total of 75 (2 percent) negative recommendations. Such negative recommendations, although rarely made, are usually the kiss of death for a bill. In order to see the progress that has been made, one has to turn to the decline in favorable bill recommendations. In the 1960s both House and Senate committees reported favorably about four of five bills referred to them (see table 1). Clearly the committee system was not a major hurdle for most legislation. By the mid-1970s, favorable recommendations were being given on about three in five bills — a distinct improvement but still quite loose. In comparative terms, Illinois still did not match up to other states in bill screening by committees.

16/May 1984/Illinois Issues

Screening has been more rigorous in the House than in the Senate in the 1980s (see table 1), but it is not immediately apparent why this is so. While House rules require a majority of the committee membership to report a bill favorably and the Senate only requires a majority of those present, this difference has existed since 1973. House committees reported only 40 percent of bills favorably in 1983. Only 25 percent received a straight "do pass" recommendation in contrast to the 50 percent in the Senate. The strong hand of House Democratic leadership was apparent in House committee action during 1983. Those we interviewed said that there were more "arrows" on bills - that is, directions from the leadership on how to vote on bills — than normal. Committee screening thus reflected the strong leadership of House Speaker Michael J. Madigan.

Despite the improvement, many legislators and other observers of the General Assembly agree that the committees are not as careful in screening as they might be. One member of the Senate leadership told us that the system "kicks out too many bills . . . [the result is that] there are too many to analyze . . . too much helter skelter. . . . [S]ometimes legislators do not know what is in a bill." His context was the adverse effect of weak screening upon action on the floor, a subject to which we shall return. Our observation left a dominant impression: Illinois legislators are extremely reluctant to vote against each other's bills in committee, even when they feel that the bills are defective; they would rather have someone else carry out the execution. It is not at all unusual to hear a committee member say: "This is a bad bill. I am committed to support it in committee, but unless it is changed I will not support it on the floor." As one legislator put it, the Illinois committee system lets "everything out except the real partisan stuff."

We do not imply that committees of the General Assembly engage in no effective screening of legislation. Emerging problems may cause committees to look closely at certain types of legislation. For example, during the 1983 session the Senate Revenue Committee refused to endorse a coal severance tax bill (S.B. 126) in view of the state fiscal condition. Similarly, the Senate Judiciary II Committee, concerned about the crisis of overcrowded prisons, held virtually all bills increasing penalties for criminal offenses.

It is nevertheless unusual for a committee to take a stand against legislation by recommending "do not pass." Instead, committee members urge sponsors to hold bills for further study. In some instances, "do not pass" recommendations reflect displeasure with attempts to upset the established order of things. For instance, Rep. Jill Zwick's (R-65, East Dundee) bill to sunset commissions, H.B. 608, was recommended "do not pass" by the House Executive Committee. Negative recommendations, when made, often reflect partisan considerations in committees such as Labor and Commerce where such divisions are intense. Bills that fail to advance do so mostly by a decision not to act. If a bill is acted on in committee, there is an overwhelming probability that it will be favorably reported. Statistics for the three most recent sessions of the General Assembly speak volumes about the screening done by Illinois committees (see table 2). If a bill is acted on in committee, its chances of a favorable recommendation range from excellent in the House to near certainty in the Senate. These figures also suggest that bill sponsors have legislation called only if they feel it will pass committee.

Shaping

At the heart of the committee process is the shaping of legislation, typically by amendment in committee. There are two pertinent considerations regarding committee shaping of legislation — the frequency and the nature of shaping.

It is readily apparent in both houses that the clear majority of bills receiving favorable action in committee advance without amendment (see table 3). From 1979-1983 Senate committees amended about one-third of bills acted on; the record of shaping was somewhat better in the House at nearly four in 10. This is hardly a record of aggressive shaping activity although it is comparable to the experience in other states.

May 1984/Illinois Issues/17

The nature of shaping cannot be depicted by precise figures. Strictly speaking, many amendments adopted in committee are actually drafted by the sponsor before the bill is even heard. It is not at all unusual for the sponsor to amend a bill before any committee discussion, often as a result of agreement between the sponsor and interest groups with a stake in the legislation. At other times such amendments correct technical errors discovered in the bill. Some amendments are suggested by members of the committee as they hear the bill. It is common for sponsors to give verbal assurances that problems in a bill will be taken care of "on second reading" on the floor. The committees are inconsistent in tolerating this practice. It is rare to see a committee work over a bill in an effort to produce a polished product since the workload of many committees precludes such detailed "markup" of legislation during session (the House Judiciary Committee, with 533 bills, is a good example).

Again, there are exceptions. A subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary II Committee worked over H.B. 606, the revision of the state's sexual offenses code in a manner closely resembling that of a congressional committee or subcommittee. Such close committee scrutiny of legislation during sessions is, however, unusual.

Committee influence

The course of bills after they leave committee underscores the relative ineffectiveness of the Illinois committee system. In an effective committee system it is presumed that committee work will remain substantially intact on the floor. If a committee amends an offending section out of a bill, it stays out; and if a committee endorses a bill, that form will be the one that passes. In Illinois, positive committee action does not guarantee a bill's success, nor does withholding of committee endorsement mean the end of the line. Illinois legislators have been remarkably inventive in creating devices to keep bills rolling along the assembly line. As Mike Lawrence quipped: "We should all have the mortality rate of Illinois bills."

One such device is the "vehicle bill." Vehicles are innocuous pieces of legislation which are introduced so that they can be amended for a different purpose at later stages in the process. By now it is a tired joke in committee for the sponsor to be asked, "Is this a vehicle bill?" Of course the sponsor denies, with a straight face, that it is. Illinois legislators quickly learn that it is in their interest to have vehicles available at the end of the session. One freshman senator told us: "It's crazy, but from now on I will play the game the way they want." This freshman realized that the more bills you have out there, the more vehicles are available for bringing bills back to life.

There is much amending on the floor of the General Assembly. Senate rules require, in fact, that even amendments approved in committee must be offered on the floor at second reading (Senate Rule 15). Many amendments are technical or minor, but, in the crush of business on the floor, amendments that were formerly defeated or that change the intent of the legislation can slip through. Senators told us that they often do not know what they are voting on. One frustrated senator exclaimed in the last session, "It is an affront to the process to explain these amendments in such a fashion." An observer told us, "When a bill goes from third back to second for an amendment, many times they are tacking on something that was defeated [earlier]." In 1983 the House did nearly as much amending on the floor (30 percent of bills adopted) as it did in committee (40 percent). Such widespread amending on the floor defeats the purpose of committees. There is not enough time to digest and debate floor amendments, the majority of which are approved by voice vote.

Addressing a meeting of the Senate's Agriculture, Conservation and Energy Committee are (from left, at table) Rep. Michael D. Curran (D-99, Springfield), Sen. Joyce Holmberg (D-34, Rockford) and John Schmitt, a member of the Republican Senate staff.

18/May 1984/Illinois Issues

There are, of course, opportunities to debate and kill measures at third reading, the passage stage, but again, there is a reluctance to impose capital punishment on legislation. When problems with bills are raised, sponsors often can explain that these can be worked out in conference committees or remedied by the governor's amendatory veto. Even if legislation is lost in third reading, it is not necessarily the end of the matter; it can be revived in conference committee.

The device of the conference committee has been more frequently used in recent sessions; indeed, usage has more than doubled since 1973. Such committees, of course, have a legitimate purpose — to resolve difference in the form in which a bill has passed the two houses, under the assumption that conferences will be confined to this activity. One problem with these reports is the limited time legislators have to scrutinize them. One legislator told us: "A 250-page conference committee report is dropped on my desk at 11:00 p.m. 'What the hell is this thing?' I asked. My seatmate replied, 'I don't know, I haven't taken a speed reading course.' " A related problem is the attempt to slip something new into the report. For example, in the recent session an expansion of the size of the Illinois Commerce Commission was placed in a conference committee report without a bill ever having been introduced.

Vehicle bills, floor amendments and conference committee reports give Illinois legislators an arsenal of weapons to revive and advance legislation — all of which compounds the problems caused by the relatively weak screening and shaping of legislation in committee. (For a critique of the use of conference committees, see Illinois Issues, July 1983, p. 24.)

Committee initiation

Illinois legislative committees seldom attempt to anticipate policy problems and to fashion legislation to deal with them. Reaction to individual bills claims the bulk of committee activity and staff resources. If broader activity of this sort takes place in Illinois, it probably occurs in some of the continuing commissions such as the School Problems Commission. A legislative

May 1984/Illinois Issues/19

committee may hold hearings between sessions, usually for the purpose of considering a major issue which has been postponed from the session or has arisen suddenly when the legislature is not in session. For example, the Senate Judiciary II Committee held such hearings on an anti-crime package in Chicago and Springfield in late summer and fall of 1983. This legislation may be considered in this spring session.

Assessment of committees

To assess the current effectiveness and importance of Illinois legislative committees, a sports analogy might be appropriate. Most professional team sports have a pre-season schedule, a regular season schedule and a play-off to determine the championship. Most fans know that the pre-season schedule is meaningless — not only do the games not count, but the intensity that enlivens competition is absent. In the golden past the regular season schedule would determine which two teams would compete for the championship; competition was meaningful and intense. Now, however, with the development of a play-off system in many sports allowing many teams to compete for the championship after the end of the regular season, the latter has been cheapened. The play-offs are nearly everything.

The Illinois committee system is not a pre-season exhibition schedule — it is meaningful. For the most part, committees are taken seriously and their work has some influence. We see the committee system as analogous to the regular season in the National Basketball Association — it screens out only the very weakest bills. Most make it to the playoffs. In other words, the committee system means something — it is a screen but not a dense one. Primarily, it enables most bills to move to the next stage, sometimes amended but most times not. Many of the important decisions (e.g., the income tax), however, are made outside the committee structure.

The picture of Illinois committees is not all dismal, despite its many flaws and blemishes. Appropriations committees, for example, were among the very weakest in committee performance in the 1960s. Now substantial staff resources are allocated to the appropriations committees, and the staff members undertake detailed scrutiny of agency budgets. Hearings on agency budgets in both houses can make agency heads squirm. The appropriations committees make an important contribution to the oversight of agency performance by asking if the dollars allocated were spent in the way the legislature intended. Although it would be an overstatement to say that the appropriations committees shape the state's budget, they do have an important watchdog role to play in the process.

Outside of appropriations we found other examples of effective committees. One is the Senate's Judiciary II Committee under the chairmanship of George E. Sangmeister (D-42, Mokena). This committee operated in a largely bipartisan manner and is very concerned about the quality of its products. We noted three examples: the reworking of H.B. 606 revising the sex crime statutes; the deferral of bills increasing criminal penalties (in light of the crisis in overcrowded prisons); the attention given to the anti-crime package after the close of the session. Committee members express the sense that Judiciary II is effective and that its work is respected on the floor of the Senate.

What accounts for the fact that most Illinois committees are not stronger? The question is especially relevant in view of increased legislative capability since the 1960s. The answer lies in the individualism of Illinois legislators and the advantages of the current system for both average members and leaders.

The informal process of the Illinois General Assembly encourages individualism. Getting bills passed is the sign of a good legislator since individual members are responsible for "carrying" their bills throughout the process. A strong sense of proprietorship leads to the frequent introduction of similar bills. In 1983, for example, nine bills were introduced creating an elected Illinois Commerce Commission.

A system, therefore, that has multiple opportunities to keep legislation alive supports each individual legislator's self-interest. A progressive House member explained it this way: "Certain issues, such as gay rights, would never get through a strong committee system.'' The converse is true, too: Legislators can rationalize to themselves that many other gatekeepers can stop faulty legislation down the road. A porous committee system benefits individual members in concrete ways — it creates opportunities for skilled legislators to keep issues alive and to achieve a good batting average. Individual legislators can introduce bills that appeal to specific constituents and interest groups, and can demonstrate their effectiveness by getting these bills passed, or at least moved along in the process.

The system simultaneously serves the interests of leadership. It insures that most important issues will not be decided in the committee. The top leadership and the governor attempt to reach compromises on the biggest issues. Many times these decisions are deferred to the end of the session. These compromises are then presented to individual legislators who must also cope with a flood of ordinary legislation, conference committee reports and the need to keep their own bills alive (or to revive them). This gives leverage to leadership. Legislators often face a "take it or leave it" situation on big issues and on appropriations.

20/May 1984/Illinois Issues

In contrast, a more effective committee system (and a stronger legislative institution) is a less tangible goal with benefits not closely tied to the interests of any individual member. Moreover, more effective committees might reduce some of the control of the big issues that leadership enjoys, although such an outcome is by no means certain. In other words, more effective committees is a good idea, but not one on which anyone ever won or lost an election or gained much influence in the General Assembly. Furthermore, individual members cannot do much about the system as long as others continue to play the game by the individualistic rules. This is what our freshman senator learned. In fact, anyone who wants to get along in Illinois had better learn to play the game, for passing bills is the name of the game. It is in nobody's self-interest, narrowly defined, to plug the holes in the committee system.

Conclusion

Despite the harshly negative judgments of its performance, the Illinois General Assembly has adapted to legislative reform. Compared to the 1960s, the committee system has made enormous strides. At the same time, however, much of what the many critics of the current committee system say is valid. It seems a puzzle that increased legislative capability has not produced a more effective committee system, but the puzzle is resolved by the realization that the norms of legislators have not changed. Many structural reforms could be attempted, such as reducing the number of committees, equalizing the workload and reducing the number of commissions and transferring their resources to committees. However, as long as legislator effectiveness is defined in terms of passing individual bills, legislative effectiveness defined in terms of a strong committee system cannot be achieved.

David H. Everson is professor of public affairs in the Illinois Legislative Studies Center at Sangamon State University. He is the author of numerous Illinois Issues articles analyzing various legislative and political issues in the state. Rita A. Harmony was research associate for this project.

The anatomy of acommittee meeting

WHILE there is no such thing as a completely typical committee hearing in Illinois, there are enough similarities to enable a reasonably accurate description.

Hearings take place in a variety of settings in the Capitol and the Stratton Office Building ranging from large and ornate chambers, to smaller, and therefore sometimes overcrowded rooms, to cubbyholes (normally used only by subcommittees). Typically, the legislators are elevated, facing the audience not each other. There is usually a table for witnesses facing the legislators. Staff sometimes sit next to legislators; sometimes to the side. A clerk sits next to the chair. Some meetings take place on the floor of the House or Senate. Some rooms are used exclusively by the House and some by the Senate. Notices of meeting places and times as well as the bills to be heard can be found outside the committee rooms, in the calendar or in other publications such as those of the State Capital Information Service. These notices are usually, but not invariably, accurate.

Hearings seldom start on time even if there are no floor sessions prior to the scheduled meeting. Interested parties to the hearing begin to gather slightly before the scheduled meeting time. These include lobbyists and legislative liaisons from the various state agencies. Many know each other and exchange greetings and information. Several begin to fill out witness slips indicating a desire to testify (or to have a position recorded) on a bill (or bills). Sometimes, a group of "amateur" lobbyists (citizens) will be there at the behest of some organization. Their purpose is to demonstrate grass-roots support or opposition to a specific piece of legislation. The amateurs are noticeable: They don't dress like lobbyists and look vaguely out of place. They often wear buttons stating their cause. Media representatives can be found at committee hearings only when controversial issues are to be discussed.

Senators or representatives begin to drift into hearings somewhat after the scheduled time for beginning. Some may talk semiprivately with interest group representatives about bills. A normal committee meeting will be gavelled to order 20-30 minutes late. Not all legislators will be present (some are presenting bills at other committee meetings). The chair may invite people to fill out witness slips and often will indicate which bills will not be heard that day (sometimes this can empty a room fast).

As a courtesy, the chair will usually call upon legislators present to take up their bills first. Often, the legislators only briefly introduce the bill and then turn the mike over to an agency or interest group representative. (Opposing witnesses are often seated next to proponents.) The level of attention given to witnesses by committee members varies. Telephone conversations, exits and entrances, reading newspapers — all may distract from the witness.

Witnesses are usually counseled to be brief and nonredundant. These warnings are not always heeded, and committee members sometimes display open irritation.

Often, the sponsor of the legislation will propose amendments prior to the discussion of the bill. This usually means either: (a) that some technical problem with the bill needs to be corrected or (b) that some problem that has arisen from the interested parties has been resolved.

The bills discussed are, of course, of varying degrees of significance. Many have to do with problems in a legislator's district. Other legislators are alert, however, when such "merely" bills come up ("this bill merely does . . ."). Invariably, legislators are concerned with the implications for their own districts.

Bills with broader significance may elicit extended discussion and exchanges between witnesses and committee members and among committee members. Normally, a few members of a committee tend to dominate this stage of the process. Witnesses, especially those representing state agencies, may be grilled. Woe to the agency representative who has managed to offend, for example, an appropriations committee chair.

While the questions may be sharp and weaknesses may be uncovered, in most instances committee members seek to protect the feelings of the sponsors. Perhaps the most frequent qualifier is, "I like your concept but ....." Members of the committee may suggest that the bill be held for modification. The sponsor will usually make an effort to move the bill along by promising to "take care of it [read "amend"] on the floor." Rarely do committee members openly attack each other, since they will need support when their bills come to hearing. In their style, their tone, their openness and pace, committee hearings offer a rare opportunity to observe the best and worst of democracy in action.

— David H. Everson

May 1984/Illinois Issues/21