And this is February 3rd, 2025, and I call the Lake County Legislative Committee meeting to order at one o'clock.

In addition to being able to attend in person, remote attendance has been made available to the public via Zoom at the link on the agenda.

This meeting is being recorded through Zoom.

Paul, would you lead us in a pledge of allegiance, please?

And welcome to the committee.

Pledge allegiance to the party of the United States of America.

And to the Republican.

Thank you.

Could we have a roll call, please?

Vice Chair Compost?

Here.

Member Hunter?

Sure.

Member Kyle.

Um Member Roberts.

Oh, sorry.

It should be Member Frank.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

Member Frank.

Sorry about that.

Member Roberts.

Member Schleck.

Member Balitzek?

Chair Wasnick.

Here.

Thank you.

All are present.

Do we have any addenda to the agenda?

We do not chair.

I just want to note that we did hear from members Schlick and Robertson.

They both ran into some personal challenges and were unable to make it today.

Okay, thanks for that.

I know we have some public comments.

We do have public comment this afternoon.

So I have a couple uh instructions to read first, and then I'll start calling public comment.

Uh, an individual has three minutes of cumulative time to provide their public comment.

Public comment must be related to the business of the county board, not redundant or political.

When appropriate matters raised by public comment should be referred to the appropriate sanity committee.

The public shall refrain from commenting about private activities, lifestyles, or beliefs of others, including county employees or elected officials that are unrelated to the business of the county board or county government in their public comment.

Comments that are uncivil, rude, vulgar, profane, or otherwise disruptive will not be allowed.

Candidates running for public office must refrain from including comments that are political in nature or that promote or support a specific candidate, including refraining from identifying oneself as a candidate for public office.

The first public comment I have is Anthony Douglas.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for uh having me.

Thank you, Chair uh Wazik in the Lake County Board Legislative Committee.

My name is Dr.

Anthony Douglas.

I'm a surgical resident at the University of Chicago.

I'm here to implore the Lake County Board to pass a resolution calling on our leaders in Springfield to pass uh House Bill 3320, Senate Bill 2279, the Responsibility and Firearm Legislation Act.

In 2024, Lake County had a 109 firearm injuries recorded by IDPH.

Assuming that 109 of those individuals survive, that would total a conservative estimate of 92 million dollars in direct and indirect costs, which begs the question who foots this bill.

The answer is we all do.

The injured, their families, hospitals, health insurance companies, small businesses, local government, and ultimately taxpayers.

While Illinois pay with their lives and pocketbooks, manufacturers of firearms profit handsomely without contributing a penny to the financial consequences of their products.

In fact, not only do they not bear the cost of their for-profit activity with our society, but they also enjoy an unprecedented immunity from lawsuits by our federal government.

The protection and lawful commerce and arms act of 2005 bars lawsuits against the industry, except in the case of illegal behavior.

Since then, firearms have become and continue to be the number one cause of death for children and teens for pregnant women and means by which suicide occurs.

Their for-profit activity creates roughly 20 billion dollars in direct and indirect costs for all of Illinois.

That is four years of college tuition for 1.9 million students.

The responsibility and firearm legislation act or the RIFL Act requires firearm manufacturers to contribute annually into a special state treasury fund based on how frequently their products are recovered in an injury or death.

Their contributions vary year to year based on the rate of gun injury in Illinois and the number of their products recovered by law enforcement.

Firearm manufacturers, both domestic and international, will be required to do so for their products to be sold, distributed, or imported in Illinois.

The funds will provide additional funding for survivor services and community violence intervention efforts.

Efforts like the Lake County Peacemakers, the quiet, painstaking work that focuses on hyperlocal community building, street outreach, de-escalation, and healing.

In 2025, Lake County saw 64 firearm injuries, a 41% drop from 2024 because of these types of efforts.

Aligning the financial interests of firearm manufacturers with injury prevention, safer innovation, and engaging with community leaders like yourselves to prioritize safety while funding the strategies that we know work is the solution that Lake County in Illinois deserves.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Douglas.

Thank you.

The next public comment I hear is Jim McGrath.

Good afternoon.

So I'm Jim McGrath.

I am here to speak in sport in support of the Rifle Act resolution that you're being asked to consider.

I'm a resident of Barrington.

I'm here representing Indivisible Illinois, has many chapters across the state, including in Lake County.

Ever since Sandy Hook, I've been involved with working to support common sense gun laws.

Most legislation has had something to do with controlling guns.

Firearms are the only consumer product where sold in America, where the manufacturer is not responsible, not held responsible for the damage that their product causes people.

It has nothing to do with uh with controlling guns.

The gun lobby is trying to position this as a gun control bill.

It is not.

The fees will be charged as Dr.

Douglas uh explained, a fee to sell their gun in Illinois.

That fee will be used to support medical bills and community violence interrupters, which, as you know, um, a lot of those funds have been cut back from the federal government.

This is the most innovative legislation that I have seen in gun violence prevention since I've been doing this work.

Um, gun violence costs everybody in Illinois something, as Dr.

Douglas pointed out.

We recognize that Lake County has been a leader in innovative actions regarding gun violence prevention.

The Lake County, by the Lake County Board uh approving this resolution, it will show that Lake County resident is show Lake County residents and the rest of the state that Lake County supports convenient continued innovation.

So we'd appreciate your support for this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next public comment I have is Tara Lemon.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Tiara Lemon, and I serve as the Gun Violence Prevention Initiative Director in the state's attorney's office.

Before I had the privilege of serving as a G VPI director, I began my career in gun violence prevention in a healthcare setting, specifically in a level one trauma center on the south side of Chicago, where I work directly with victims and survivors of gun violence during their vote their most vulnerable and critical moments.

The fathers, the sons, the brothers, the sisters, the mothers, the loved ones whose lives were forever altered by violence.

Alongside the gratitude I felt every day for being able to serve, there was also an unsettling realization.

Our systems are not built on trauma-informed principles, nor are they designed with victims and survivors in mind.

Imagine being shot multiple times, undergoing several life-saving surgeries, and lying in a hospital bed, not focused on healing, but worried about how soon you need to be discharged before the hospital bills kept accumulating.

This leaves little to no room for true recovery and restoration.

Yet, this was the reality of many of the patients I sat with.

So why are victims forced to carry the lifelong burden of tens of thousands of dollars in debt for care that saved their lives?

Care that they were entitled to receive.

This is why the RIFEL Act is so critical.

Not only does it remove these unjust burdens from victims, but it also helps fund the very programs doing the work to prevent violence in the first place.

Programs like the Gun Violence Prevention Initiative and the Lake County Peacemakers.

The RIFL Act will help sustain the very declines we've been able to track here in Lake County.

And in doing so, it reduces costs to both victims and taxpayers while investing in evidence-based preventative solutions that save lives.

I want to extend a sincere thank you to Dr.

Douglas and the RIFEL Coalition for not only identifying a long-standing gap in care, but for taking the meaningful action to close it.

This is what justice, compassion, and public safety working together truly look like.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jared.

Um last uh in person public comment I have is State's attorney Reinhardt.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Eric Reinhardt.

I'm the Lake County State's attorney.

I want to uh thank everybody for uh listening to uh the comments of uh Dr.

Douglas, Mr.

McGrath, uh G VPI director at Tierra Lemon.

Thank you for your consideration during public comment.

I will be brief today.

Um I also want to thank the board for its past leadership.

Uh over the last several years, the Lake County Board, uh, ahead of frankly many other local systems of government throughout the country, throughout the state, certainly, has shown real dedication and leadership to tackling gun violence, to not simply talk about it after the fact.

We are past the time of platitudes.

We are past the time of saying we want gun violence to end.

We are in the period of prevention.

The statistics that Dr.

Douglas gave today show that we are seeing less and less gun violence in uh in Lake County.

And those are statistics from the Illinois Department of Public Health.

Law enforcement statistics, also not from our office, show these declines.

The coroner's office, another set of data.

I'll give you a fourth one.

Shot spotter in North Chicago shows significant declines.

None of that data comes from the state's attorney's office.

All of the data comes from independent sources, and gun violence is decreasing in Lake County because of all of you.

Because all of you said that you would fund these innovative programs.

The RIFL Act is the next step forward.

The RIFL Act is the thing that we need to continue to be innovative to hold gun manufacturers accountable.

But as you heard from Director Lemon, to help victims.

This is one of the most pro-victim bills that I have ever seen, because this funding will go directly to help victims.

It will also go to prevention.

As I said earlier, we cannot always be reacting.

We must prevent.

And by funding violence interrupters, which is exactly what this will do, it would deploy it to offices of uh violence prevention, which should which would include our office.

This would be a funding, uh, this would be a funding fix for that problem that we always see in terms of uh moving the burden away from local Lake County taxpayers but to the broader to the broader Illinois to the broader Illinois system.

But in this case, it would be gun manufacturers.

In this case, it would not be taxpayers, but rather gun manufacturers.

And if we can pay for these prevention programs, then we are saving millions of dollars.

It is also pro-victim in that way.

Finally, I will end by saying it is pro-victim because it will hopefully decrease, it will hopefully decrease the gun violence that we see in terms of gun manufacturers having to pay and being deterred from constantly putting these weapons of war uh into our into our system.

This is a uniquely American epidemic.

It does not happen in other countries.

It does not happen in other countries for a reason.

And those reasons are because we have too many of these weapons of war that are hurting too many people.

We can't end this.

It is not in our DNA, it is not in our destiny, it is our decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we will come back to this topic a little bit later.

I do have one additional virtual public comment.

Okay.

Um, if staff can bring over Ashby Beasley.

And Ashley uh Ashby, I'm sorry, you should be able to unmute and speak.

Hi, hello.

Nope, please proceed.

Um I just want to say that my name is Ashby Beasley, and I'm a Lake County resident.

On July 4th, 2022, my son and I survived a mass shooting in our hometown of Highland Park, Illinois.

Since the shooting, my son has needed many resources to heal from the trauma he experienced.

He has needed therapy and therapeutic resources like EMDR, which was not covered by insurance.

Our family has spent more than $70,000 in insurance claims and out-of-pocket expenses to help an uninjured child heal from the trauma of gun violence.

I want you to think about how much that will cost for children who are injured or anyone who is actually injured in gun violence.

It was imperative that we helped our son because his trauma began to manifest into anger and rage.

He hit other kids.

Every day, kids are experiencing gun violence, and they are not able to access the resources they need to heal.

They're growing up angry, and violence is beginning more violence.

The RIFEL Act will help victims of gun violence by funding survivor services, which will prevent future gun violence.

All kids deserve the access to resources they need to heal.

And the RIFEL Act prioritizes this.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And thanks all of you for coming out today and um helping us consider this uh legislation, and we'll be having a little bit more of a discussion uh later in the uh meeting.

Thanks again.

Um have just a few remarks.

Uh, I just want to note that we had a very successful legislative breakfast.

We had a record crowd, thanks to our partners at Lake County Municipal League.

Uh special thanks to Representative Brad Schneider, Senator Adrian Johnson, Representative Dan Diddich, representative of Rita Mayfield, representative of Laura Favor Dias, and Representative Martin McLaughlin.

And big thanks to Chair Hart, who is our co-emcity for the affair, and uh for Jessica for coming and supporting us.

We really appreciate it, and several mayors and trustees, and of course, the staff, Mayor through Matt, Ruth, Ann, and Jenna and Jessica.

Well, mention you twice, sorry.

And we also presented our legislative agenda to those who could not attend, uh, including Senators Julie Morrison.

Thanks to Paul for arranging that, and Mary Edley Allen and also Representative Joyce Mason.

And we're following up to see that every member of our delegation receives at least a copy of our legislative agenda.

If they have any questions, they can contact us, Matt or our lobbyists in Springfield.

So thanks again for your support on this.

And we're off to Washington in a few weeks uh for the NACO legislative congress.

You're all, of course, invited to join us.

Uh, we will be um visiting Capitol Hill, talking to our congressional representatives and our two senators, and also attending the Iseco reception um in DuPont Circle.

So again, you're all welcome to join us and lobby your elected representatives.

Hope you can uh make the trip with us.

And and that's it for my remarks.

Um, do we have any unfinished business?

We do not.

Okay.

I new business.

So we have a consent agenda, items item 8.1.

Can I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes?

Motion and second.

All those in favor.

Only opposed.

Chair, can I get clarification as to who's a motion and second?

Oh, with motion by vice chair Campos.

Campos and second by member Hunter.

Thank you.

And it passes unanimously onto our regular agenda.

Item 8.2 is um update from Springfield.

I think we have Derek on the line.

Derek, can you hear us okay?

I can, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you for allowing me to zoom in today.

We are off to an intentionally slow start to the 2026 session.

Um, in January, the Illinois House of Representatives was in Springfield for three session days.

The United Senate for two.

This week, the Senate returns to Springfield for two o'clock call this afternoon.

Three scheduled session days before both houses stand adjourned until Tuesday, February 17 before Governor Pritzker's fiscal year 2027 budget address on the following day.

Through the primary election session will be intentionally sporadic.

With session, just like it historically is during the second year of the General Assembly, backloading heavy days through the weekends, some weekends in May of this year.

Two date, only a handful of bills have been introduced in advance of Friday, February 6th's bill fighting deadline.

In the Senate as of now, maybe about 500 bills have been filed.

In the House, a few more, but between today and Friday, it will not be unexpected if we approach close to 5,000 bills being filed this week for potential 2026 consideration.

The governor will propose a budget seeking to close what is expected to be about a two and a half billion dollar deficit.

And the number assumes status full on everything that could possibly affect that figure itself.

Washington, DC action, revenue projections that fall below where they are projected to be, both historically and practically over the past few years.

Anticipated consideration of some bills with the acknowledgement that, again, in the second year of a General Assembly, there will be substantive work in the veto session.

And between January 1st and January 12th, 2027, several days before this General Assembly adjourned Sinai D.

Long story short today.

And I wish I had more to update.

We are in the opening inning of the 2026 session.

The budget address in two weeks, the primary election, and then a heavy backloaded session through May 31st.

I wish I had more to report, sir.

But I'm happy to stop there.

Yield a mic if he has anything to offer and then happy to answer questions from you or any member of your committee.

Thanks.

Any questions for Derek?

Yes, any.

Thank you.

Um I was notified about a Senate Bill 2941 that has to do with the um, I think it's the quarter percent sales tax, RTA, quarter percent sales tax that says that half of the money generated by a county uh would need to go to law enforcement.

I think there was a a shall in there rather than May.

Um this board uh we spend all of our money that we receive for the quarter percent sales tax on transportation, uh, because for so long we never had a gas tax, a local option motor fuel tax, and we continue to be the um the county with the lowest uh county option motor fuel tax in the Chicagoland area.

So having a um a change to the RTA quarter percent sales tax and having half of that go to I think it's law enforcement, um, would be a significant concern, I would think for our board.

So do you have any more information on that?

First of all, thank you for the question.

Mike and I are actually scheduled to see the bill sponsor, I believe, tomorrow afternoon to discuss this bill and two or three others.

Um this board should be congratulated for spending those dollars appropriately on transportation needs.

Um I know that's not possible for some counties in the state.

Um, this board should be held up because of your desire in your continuance to do so.

After we talked to the bill sponsor, we're happy to report back to Matt, but we look forward to our discussion with Richmond.

Okay, thank you.

And I I just now pulled it up.

It looks like it was followed by Senator Adrian Johnson.

So I don't think it's just for uh Lake County.

I think it is No, it's it's for the college it's for all the collars.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, I I think that would be a concern for our board.

So okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for that.

And I think sounds more like a technical correction of um I'm right on that.

Possibly.

Okay.

Well, I'm not sure I would necessarily read it as a technical correction, but I think as uh Derek said, we're gonna meet with uh Senator Johnson tomorrow afternoon and uh try to get a better understanding of uh uh what she's trying to accomplish with this bill and uh uh whether her desires and uh the actual language are moving in the same direction.

There have been a lot of issues with the legislative reference bureau this year and bills coming out uh in bad shape or not in proper condition, so to speak.

So it could very well be that this isn't what she wanted, but filed it anyway, so she'd have a vehicle to amend.

Um we'll find that stuff out when we when we talk to her and and report back.

Thanks so much.

Uh, do we have any other questions for Derek or Mike?

Uh gentlemen, are there any clear sponsors of any items on our state legislative agenda that you know of going into this filing session part of it?

So I I'll go ahead and speak to the to our primary uh uh legislative uh item, which is the uh legislation on vexatious FOIA requests.

Excuse me.

We've had several conversations with Representative Dan Diddich, and he's being extraordinarily helpful with us.

He's already filed uh four different uh FOIA bills this year and has already started work on vex some vexatious FOIA issues with uh a series of um school administrator uh organizations and has invited us to be part of that.

Uh, we actually helped convene a meeting that took place yesterday uh with um uh Matt and Patrice Sutton and Derek and I, where we're and and and part of the Lake County team to kind of discuss where our issues were and uh where uh uh Representative Diddish felt things were going.

I think uh right now um the intent because one of the things that Derek didn't mention is that uh, you know, the understanding is that there are going to be bill limits this legislative session.

So legislators are gonna have to be choosy about which vehicles they they want to move through the process.

And since Diddich was already involved in this, he is committed to working with us uh on folding our issues into these and and seeing how far he can get this through the session.

He did indicate that it could be a difficult lift since there were some significant uh uh revisions to the FOIA Act last year uh and coming back the next year might not be something that they want to want to reopen this soon, but uh he's uh convening the working groups and we are at the table and uh he's committed to you know trying to address our issues.

So we feel good about our progress on that.

Okay, good to hear.

Any other questions for Mike or Derek?

Okay, gentlemen, thanks very much.

And we might come back to you.

Yeah, and sure.

There's item eight four is a discussion and presentation related to bills.

We've kind of touched on some bills.

As as Derek could say, there's been a number of bills that have been filed over the last less than a week that uh staff is currently going through.

Certainly one that's on our radar at the top of our radar at this point is SB 2941, as the chair had brought up.

Um, but I this is uh I have no other discussion today regarding state bills, but I wanted to see if there was a a discussion that wanted to occur regarding the RIFL Act that was discussed on our public comment if you wanted to have that discussion now.

Yes, why don't we?

Um are there any questions regarding presentations or questions about the bill itself?

We got a few handouts here.

I know we just got them, but um and who we who would we direct these questions to, Matt?

So I think Member Kenishnik did want to provide a comment.

Great.

All right, sounds good.

Let's start with uh Paul.

Yeah, thanks, Chair.

Um, I'll try not to get over my skis as the newest member of the committee, but I really want to thank um Member Kenishnik and State Attorney's Office and the other speakers for sharing information about the act.

I think the federal liability shield for the manufacturers is one of the most fundamentally unfair things that we've seen in firearms legislation uh in in decades.

Um if access to firearms is paramount, um they should be manufactured, sold, and used in a way that is uniformly safe, and the manufacturers are held to standards as other industries are in our country.

Um liability makes things safer for users, consumers, no matter what the product.

And um I just think it's a fundamentally unfair, unfair thing that that the Congress enacted several years ago.

So I'm interested in learning more about the right flag.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Jessica.

Thanks.

I'm supportive as well, and thank you to member Kanishnik for bringing this to the committee.

Um this also brought to mind, and I read through all of this um information, so thank you for for supplying it.

Um and I read some of the precedents that it's based on.

It also, even though it doesn't sound it's not exactly the same but similar, brought to mind the tobacco um lawsuits that resulted in the sort of recurring fund the settlement agreement.

I'm sure, yeah, okay, they're nodding.

So um where tobacco companies have to pay annually into it.

Um you know, I think if you are going to be a part of a uh of a business that creates something that is inherently dangerous, there's a responsibility you have as that manufacturer um as that participant in the ecosystem of guns and gun violence to um do what you can and fund what you can.

And some of these companies make hundreds of millions of dollars a year to ensure that um there are common sense gun laws that help increase safety versus perpetuate a culture of violence where it's too easy um to access guns.

Um my question, I have a couple.

I know this is a state state law.

What is um would we have to bring this back again to vote to add it to our agenda, or is that something we can do today?

That's number one.

What's the process?

And then this is just for maybe for the public commenter, unless someone here knows our member Kenishnik.

Did I hear that firearm firearms are the number one cause of death of pregnant women?

One of the public commenters said that.

So I'd like to hear more about that.

Thank you.

I see Dr.

Douglas uh nodding back there.

Could you comment on that, please for us?

And Sarah.

May he maybe ask him to stay at the podium in order to answer any other questions that come up.

It's a pretty complex bill, and no one knows it better than he does.

Thank you, Member Knisny.

Um Member Hart or Mm.

Politics.

I'm sorry.

Um, firearms um are the number one cause of death for pregnant women.

Um the number one cause of death for pregnant women is domestic violence during the period of pregnancy and the most often um means by which pregnant women are killed or firearms.

So it is the number one cause of death for pregnant women in our country uh right now.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes, any.

Thank you.

Uh I'm gonna join on that bandwagon and thanks a kanisnik um for bringing this forward and for her years of passion before and during uh being on this board, I've learned so much.

And I I just really want to thank our speakers who came.

I I am supportive of this.

I'm uh you know, we talked uh member Frank brought up the federal law that sort of protects them.

Um, but I think anything we can do to create something where um people, if they are unfortunately shot, that somebody is helping or this firearm manufacturers are helping to pay uh for their injuries.

Um in 2022, our board had three committee of the whole to talk about gun violence.

And I pulled up my notes uh from that, and this is from 2022.

It says healthcare spending attributable to non-fatal firearm injuries nationally would exceed 2.5 billion dollars in the first year that they were shot.

And then it doesn't take into account all of those long-term costs for traumatic brain injuries, disabilities, and then clinical consequences, uh, such as downstream spending from increased psychiatric burden borne by family members as well.

Um the cost uh is very difficult, right?

I think the GOE or uh government, excuse me, GIO has not really uh looked into healthcare costs of gun violence, but um any step we can take to hold firearm manufacturers responsible uh for the injuries and deaths uh in our country, um, I'm all in.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Committee?

Yes, sorry.

Uh thank you, Chair.

I have one question.

I know we are talking about personal injury.

Uh, what about per damage to property as well?

Would the manufacturers also be held liable as well through this bill?

Uh in the original filing of the bill, member compost, we did intend to cover property damage, but um the reality is these manufacturers uh profit very little compared to the public costs that they generate and uh to account for not only property damage but the medical costs, the mental health care costs, et cetera, uh would be uh a bill that is um uh manufacturers wouldn't be able to bear.

Uh so there, you know, the sad reality is the public costs dwarf what they profit.

And so uh we want it to include property damage, but unfortunately um in order to pass a feasible bill that works and uh at least doesn't put manufacturers completely out of business.

Uh we've limited the amount of things that this legislation uh could cover in funding.

I think that's um an interesting thing you just said that if we put damage to property, it would put them out of business.

In addition to uh in addition to the other thing, but I think that's interesting to what you said.

Um I am in complete uh support of uh adding uh the rifle act uh to our list of uh uh legislation that we want to get passed here in in Lake County.

I think uh I want to thank uh Ms.

Ken uh member Kenisnik for uh bringing this to our attention, and this is what this legislative committee is about, right?

We heard the state's attorney um talk about how legislation and funding helps uh with gun violence prevention and bringing uh down uh gun violence within our communities.

Uh I am a hundred percent for this.

I I uh would love to see, and not that the gun manufacturers are being able to get away with uh what they're able to get away with currently.

Um it's interesting because a product such as guns, um just like when we hold people that accountable, the the pharmaceutical companies when they make a bad drug, right?

They're held liable.

The gun manufacturers must be held liable as well.

Um and a product like a gun is so interesting because other than target practice or hunting, when it's used, it causes damage.

That's their function.

Um and having and having the government foot the bill and then the people uh to foot the bill um for for their product to be sold and for them to continue to make a profit, I think is uh a bit disingenuous and opposite of what we want to create uh here in Lake County.

Um I 100% for this.

Thank you so much, uh Sarah, for um bringing this to our attention, and I'm so happy to bring it to the full board um through the committee first and then on to the full board to vote on it.

Thank you.

Sarah, and then a follow-up by Jessica and then Mara.

Thank you.

I just thank you to everyone's express support.

Uh I'm also in favor of the Rifle Act, but I wanted to follow up.

Surprise, I wanted to follow up on something that Dr.

Douglas said a few moments ago.

He talked in response to your question, Member Compost about how um you know we we he had hoped through this bill to be able to uh help uh hold manufacturers accountable for property damage, but we they had learned through the process of gathering data that that would literally bankrupt uh firearm manufacturers.

So I just wanted to follow up on that comment.

One of the things that I find most extraordinary about this bill, and it's like unlike any other I've seen in my 10 years of advocacy at both the state and federal levels for gun safety, is that the purpose, the desire behind this bill is not to put, we don't want fire manufacturers to go out of business.

What we want is to create an incentive for them to become partners with us in helping to reduce gun violence.

Uh and one of the most powerful things I've learned from my 10 years of advocacy in this space is that the vast majority of gun owners are don't like gun violence any more than I do, and they value that sense of responsibility.

Uh and so uh, you know, everyone is doing their part.

Legal gun owners, gun dealers who abide by gun dealer licensing and all of our other state laws that are aimed at reducing the flow of illegally trafficked firearms and gun violence, uh, county boards that are funding organizations like the G VPI, uh, every and the and the taxpayer, right?

We're all doing our part to help pay the exorbitant costs of gun violence, except the firearm manufacturers.

And I'd just like to, in order to further back up the point I just made, I'd like to invite Dr.

Douglas to share some of the things that he's learned about uh who is profiting most from this, which firearm manufacturers are profiting most uh from the sales of firearms in Illinois, uh, where they're located and so on.

I think he knows what I'm referring to.

Um so uh looking at the Illinois violent death reporting data of the the top seven manufacturers account for 40 percent of the firearms that are used in in deaths in Illinois, and of those seven, five of them are international companies that have some operations in the states, but were founded outside of uh the borders of the United States.

So the the majority of manufacturers who are actually creating these public costs and public arm uh are not founded actually here in uh in the United States.

Is was that the answer?

Exactly.

Yeah, and I was shocked to learn that myself.

I mean, the American taxpayer is paying the full cost of gun violence and five or seven manufacturers located outside of the United States pay nothing, right?

Why is the taxpayer paying for their profits?

I I don't think that's right.

And frankly, every law-abiding gun owner is a taxpayer as well.

So thank you.

Jessica.

Um this discussion brought to mind the question that um is there it well, as the bills written now, or is there room in the future, or what thought has been put to it working in reverse, sort of to some of the things you're speaking of, like um, and I I am not as steeped in the details of this issue as many in this room, but if there were certain safety measures like um, you know, sort of colloquially you hear about you know, fingerprints and that manufacturers could implement those in right, or they aren't, maybe because of the cost, whatever.

But if they do, then that works into this calculation someway.

They're uh their contributions every year are based on the incidence of gun injury and death.

So ideally the the big picture goal is that as violence decreases, so does their contributions to this fund.

So annually, um the the agency that operates these functions would uh look at the incidence of injury and death in Illinois with the associated expenses, and then um as those decrease, ideally manufacturers' contributions decrease as well.

So we our big picture is to incentivize them to invest in safer technology to invest in um the you know the practic business practices and standards that make products safer in every other industry, recalling products that are compatible with switches or uh additions to firearms that make them automatic uh weapons.

Um to your in yes, in a well, kind of a direct and indirect way.

We hope that this is what incentivizes them to add biometric technology and other types of technology to make their products safer and stem interstate in illegal trafficking.

Yeah.

Including, I'm sure, um, education campaigns to this, you know, the culture of people coming, you know, to buy guns, what where they can where they can and should store them and things like that.

Yeah.

Awesome.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Uh Laura.

And then Kevin.

Okay.

I had a final question.

So the international companies you're talking about that have manufacturers.

Question.

I believe so.

I believe the tariffs have applied to um both, I mean, all importers of products.

Uh I believe so.

I'm sure the the tariffs have increased the price sticker price of a firearm.

Excellent point.

Um, I think this is incredible legislation.

Oh, sorry, I don't think that they can hear you.

Sorry.

All right, thank you.

I think this is incredible legislation, and it comes at a very important time.

And we are the county, you know, that leads on these things, and we unfortunately experienced a mass shooting.

And you know, I think this kind of legislation is it's innovative and it's important.

And I would hope that manufacturers would also, you know, try to look at the situation and say, you know, what else can we do to be a partner?

Why, you know, I think we're all frustrated about the lack of uh checks that are in place when somebody is purchasing a firearm.

A lot of people who shouldn't have them have them.

And I'd love to see that system, you know, tightened up.

I don't know if this legislation, you know, if there's anything that can be negotiated with that.

But um Sarah, you always do an incredible job.

This is your passion, and um we benefit from it.

The state of Illinois is gonna benefit from it.

So when we thank our G VPI and state's attorney Reinhardt, and um, you know, we're very fortunate to have incredible people working on this issue for us every single day.

And we thank you um for your passion.

And I'm sure you've experienced a lot that has led you, you know, to this moment to feel you know, we really need some type of legislation like this.

Um so I, you know, I'm in total support of it.

I can't imagine, you know, I I feel that the county will will support this.

It's it's really important, and it gives relief to our victims who have gone through a lot.

Right, thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin.

Thanks, Jerry.

Um, I know certainly my colleagues know that I've been a legal gun owner for over 47 years.

Um, and I have multiple firearms.

Um I I own and store them safely.

Um, I think it's an incredibly important topic.

I really wish that there was some sort of way that I would have known that you were coming, and this kind of discussion was going to happen because I would have loved to have people that may have a pro or other side of the view and just here.

Um, so I'm sure if this committee sends it to the full committee, that will happen.

Um, it's because I think it's something that needs to be talked about.

Um, is there, I mean, just because you just handed this out, and I'm I'd rather listen to you than sit and read this at this point.

Um, is there anything related to ammunition in this?

We the ammunition manufacturers.

Unfortunately, we weren't able to add ammunition manufacturers because they don't reliably um tag or indicate who the the main maker of uh ammunition that particular ammunition is, or invariably you have some uh ammunition manufacturers that do have some type of um way to identify the shale of the bullet as the as the who the creator is, but then you have a large amount of ammunition manufacturers that do not.

Uh and so it's it's too invariable in terms of to include them reliably uh and hold ammunition manufacturers accountable.

And and I'm not looking to bring them into this, yeah, but at the same token, if the logic is the gun, then I think the ammunition's got to be part of it, A.

Um if if that's the direction.

Um and um and B, you're right.

The casings aren't all labeled as to who manufactures them.

But we worked on another piece of legislation that's been around for a number of years.

We've tried, and it's carpet manufacturers.

And trying to get them to put some sort of upfront charge because at some point that carpet that's being taken out of its original location is is is an environmental mess.

And we've had a hard time getting that done.

I'm not comparing guns with carpet, but I'm getting the but the process.

Um we don't care who makes the carpet.

That's up front.

If that same logic applies, then it would apply to ammunition too.

I just wish we would have had more time to talk about this prior to this, because this is a it's a big subject.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Sorry, and then Sandy.

No, no.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Chair.

Um, just uh reiterate, uh member Hunter.

Um so if we were to request that, I mean, just for us, if we were to request something to be added to the bill, such as my comments earlier, a wanting uh uh asking about property, uh, and that it was too um burdensome or too uh too too large of a bill to pass through in Springfield.

Would that be true as well?

Adding ammunition is that why you also did not add ammunition into that bill as well?

No, we we wanted to add ammunition, but you know, again, that the issue is that the shale casings of uh bullets are not as frequently uh identifiable in terms of their manufacture um as uh firearms are also um you know when we were considering any adding ammunition manufacturers, we know that there's less that they can do to innovate or to make a bullet safer because the means for a bullet to cause damage is the firearm itself, which allows that bullet to move at a high velocity speed that causes you know both physical uh kinetic and thermal damage to the body.

So understood.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh and I appreciate this conversation and sometimes things come up a committee, and you know, Sarah brought this forward and came up during public comment.

Um, and you know, there will be an opportunity to hear from the public if if this committee does choose to go forward and and add this.

And certainly I welcome um hearing from everybody.

It will, I'll just say, really surprise me if there are people who come who say, wow, I really think um the people who got shot need to continue to shoulder the costs of their medical care along with uh, you know, taxpayers and residents.

Um because right now, you know, in that committee of the whole in 2022, um, we were finding that it was being borne by businesses, it was being borne by Medicaid.

Uh some of it was Medicare, it was private insurance companies.

And I think Kevin, you bring up a really good point about the um carpet manufacturers, right?

It's that extended product responsibility.

So why wouldn't it be just tacked on to the sale of every gun?

Like I think we have EPR on tires, I think.

So um, but as it stands today, I am sure there has been a lot of conversation, a lot of negotiation to get it to where this is.

And I um 100% in support.

Thank you so much again for bringing this forward.

And I'll make sure to have some more of this data um in terms of the cost to the American public cost that is not born uh by people who live in other countries where they uh the number one cause of children uh is not uh gun violence.

The number one cause of death for pregnant women, that was another new one, uh, is uh is gun violence as we have to deal with here in the United States.

So thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Uh and then Mara again.

So I do like this idea though, maybe creating some separate piece of legislation.

I like what I don't know if it was Chair Hart said it.

Um adding some kind of tax or something to all the ammunition sold, and that money goes to some kind of victim fund.

If there was a way to do that, and then you don't have to identify, we know that ammunition does contribute to the total problem.

I would love, you know, I would love to see some kind of legislation like that because in some way they should be held accountable in some fashion.

So if there was a we were able to put some kind of tax on ammunition, I think you'd see a lot of support for that.

So what do you think?

Thank you.

Actually, there are a lot of people who are considering exactly that type of law.

And I believe it's been passed in California, if I'm not mistaken.

Um I I'm not against the idea.

I think we can do both.

I mean, but uh one of the things that I find so special about the RIFL Act is that a bill like that, frankly, would punish law-abiding gun owners, right?

Who are purchasing ammunition.

Why are we taxing them again?

Okay.

I mean, I'm not opposed to the idea, I'm open to it, right?

But um, you know, this bill doesn't tax anyone, right?

Uh including law-abiding gun owners, right?

So um, you know, I'm happy I think you know, to end the gun violence epidemic, it will take a lot of a mix of many different types of policy changes.

Uh, but this is what makes this bill the most innovative of all, is that it not only has no impact at all on people's access to their second amendment rights, uh, but it also creates a uh revenue stream for federal, local, state, well, indirectly uh state or excuse me, indirectly local government agencies like our own, it creates a funding stream that is not a burden on the taxpayer.

Um and I'll repeat again, all law-abiding gun owners pretty much are also taxpayers.

Uh so I had another comment, but I'd really like to hear what member Velitzik um wants to say, and if there are any other questions.

I just had a question.

I I'm looking back at the bill's history as he was introduced first last year.

I'm wondering if you can speak to um the reception and then the future knocking on wood outlook this session.

Um so the original bill that's on ILGA was filed at the um the what the direct public cost of gun injury is.

Um, and we filed it that way to make it clear to our legislatures that this is the real cost to gun violence in Illinois.

Uh the amended bill that uh may not be reflected on there, but I'll I'll share it with member Knizhnik in and to send it to you all uh holds manufacturers for seven to fifteen percent of that number that is on um on the bill that you saw.

Uh and that number one is feasible for manufacturers to bear financially.

Um, and then it continues to provide the support for victim services as well as uh community violence intervention efforts like Lake County Peace uh makers.

We the the reception has been uh largely positive.

I mean, the we're very close to passing this legislation, so the closer we get, the obviously the more we hear about uh concerns.

I think um, you know, most uh whether Republican or Democrat, no one pipes up to think say that taxpayers should continue to bear the financial burden of gun injury.

And so from the concept of the bill, we really don't get much pushback.

Um most of the pushback, I think sometimes comes from uh implementation.

How do you, you know, you know, law enforcement did they don't recover 100% of firearms using injury or death, uh, but we are recovering enough firearms to make it um um uh uh to be a representative sample of if we recovered all the firearms, what it would look like.

Um and then the the other thing that we often hear around the legislation is uh more recently is around law enforcement and uh law enforcement's contribution to injuries or death.

Uh and law enforcement actually very rarely uses their firearm to cause injury or harm.

Um, but the the sadder part about it is uh law enforcement actually has three times higher suicide rates than civilians, and oftentimes those are with their service weapon.

And so our communication with our legislators who feel a little bit concerned about including law enforcement injuries and deaths is you know, you're actually causing that community in particular harm because their pro the products that they use are actually being used to end their own lives.

So um that's been uh outside of process and implementation.

Uh we really haven't had much pushback in terms of the the spirit of of the legislation.

Sorry for the long-winded answer.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Um Paul and then Sarah.

Question is uh member hunters and thank you again, member commissioning.

Um are we planning to have uh posted discussion?

Like what's the next step for the committee?

Um Thanks, Member Frank.

I will state that the legislative program outlines um the process for county position on specific bills.

The program states that the county takes positions through this committee.

Um so all that I staff am looking for is general consensus committee to support these bills, and then the county will therefore support them.

Um the county board is informed on such decisions.

So we would draft uh an email or some kind of message to the full county board sitting that the legislative committee took a position.

Uh, but and the county board may revisit this uh thereafter via request of the county administrator.

So there's a process in which we'll support the bills via consensus.

That's the action through this committee.

We'll inform the full board that the county lake county is there for supporting the bills.

And if there is a request to revisit them uh this by the full county board, we would have to put that on a board agenda to do so.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

If I if I may, I think one of the reasons why that uh flexibility is important is because we've talked about four legislative process moves quickly.

And sometimes it's not always possible to have the full length of time that we do for contracts and other matters.

So thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, Sarah.

And then Kevin, you're after her.

Happy to defer to Member Hunter.

Okay if he likes.

Thank you.

Um I'd really like to see this get to the board.

I know just like member Frank said, we had a um, you know, this we we designed that.

I've been on this committee for a number of years.

We designed that if we to be nimble so that we didn't have to wait for the cycle of the board meetings.

Okay.

Um this bill was filed last year.

Uh this wasn't yesterday.

So I I really feel it needs to get if if it goes through committee, because I feel I'll be probably the only one that is no, and the only reason I'm no is I I didn't know anything about it until I walked in today.

I I don't think that that's fair.

It's a big topic.

It is a huge topic.

And uh and I think it needs deserves deserves to get heard.

And it gets deserves to get heard from our entire board.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think Member Hunter is absolutely correct in believing that he and everyone else uh should have the right to hear from both sides about the bill.

Uh so I agree with everything that member Hunter just said.

Um, I'd like to add just a quick detail to um the comments that Dr.

Douglas made in response to Member Volitzick's question.

Um, because this is a legislative committee, I'll just share the details in terms of support currently in the Illinois General Assembly for this bill.

As of today, there are 41 co-sponsors of this bill in the House with another 11 House members having um expressed support for it.

Uh in the Senate, there are 24 co-sponsors with at least another six uh who have expressed their willingness to support it.

Uh so currently there are enough votes to pass it in the Senate, and there are, I believe, just a lacking eight to nine votes in the House.

Uh the amount of uh support and speed at which Dr.

Douglas and his team have been able to garner that support uh is like I've never seen that before on a gun safety bill.

Um this this is really one of a kind in so many different ways.

And another way that it's one of a kind, and and I'll share this last point, and then I'm gonna make sort of the argument I prepared in support of the idea of Lake County Board passing a resolution calling on the General Assembly to pass the RIFL Act.

Now, the last final thing that really makes this bill stand out from all other gun safety bills I've heard about over the years is so many times we hear, well, Chicago, Illinois, Lake County, maybe we have really great policies around gun safety, but if all the communities, the states that surround us um have um ineffective or lack gun safety policies, then what good will that do?

This is and and normally every bill I've ever worked on, or every gun safety policy, I've got no response to that.

I'm like, you're right.

Like if Indiana, you know, isn't serious about protecting people from gun violence, then we can't we're limited in what we can accomplish in Illinois.

One of the special things about this bill is that that whole argument does not apply because it does not matter where the gun was sold.

It only matters that it was recovered in Illinois.

So, you know, there are so many things about this bill that are innovative.

Um, I've been incredibly proud to learn about the bill and um to see um Dr.

Douglas and all of the members of the Lake County or the RIFL Act Coalition and the work that they've been doing over the last uh year to build support for the bill.

Um so I'll just make my final argument and urge all of the members of this committee uh to support the idea of a resolution um by the Lake County Board um calling on the assembly to pass it.

The cost of gun injury is exorbitant.

You can see here 18 to 20 billion dollars a year is what it costs the state of Illinois.

Um, and Illinois taxpayers just shouldn't have to foot the full bill.

Um it's reasonable and right and morally necessary that firearm manufacturers help pay the costs.

Um, but the most fundamental problem and why we face the epidemic that we do is that the interests of those of us who prioritize public safety are misaligned with those of the manufacturers.

Their interest is profit.

Um, and when you know the kind of facts that Dr.

Douglas shared with us today, such as the top five five sellers of manufactur of manufacturers of firearms in Illinois uh are not even based in the United States.

Why would they be concerned about the public safety of Americans?

Uh so you know creating an alignment between their interests and ours is what this bill does in a way I've never seen any other bill do.

Um the truth is nothing sells guns as effectively as fear.

And every time we have a mass shooting, including the mass shooting in Highland Park in 2022, we after those shootings, we see a huge increase in gun sales.

Um the RIFL Act is a fair and equable solution to that misalignment because it requires fire manufacturers to contribute to the cost that their products generate, to share in those costs with the taxpayers, but only if their products are recovered.

That's the real genius of it.

If their products are not recovered in an unintentional shooting, suicide or homicide in Illinois, then they pay nothing at all.

Uh and so fine, one final point I'd like to make.

This I'm I'm honored to serve on the Health and Community Services Committee with many of you.

Um, and this morning we heard um a really compelling and frankly disturbing report from County Administrator Sutton about the impact of federal funding cuts on our health workforce and community development departments.

And we discussed the need to consider leveraging our reserves to prevent those departments from having to cut staff and programming that saves lives.

To do this without increasing the levy and to minimize any necessary amount of spending of our reserves will require cutting support for programs in other departments.

That's the hard reality.

Um, and so in order to do our jobs as county board members responsibly, I believe we must seriously consider all other funding options, especially options like the RIFL Act, which represent a non-taxpayer funded revenue stream.

In this climate of extreme uncertainty and chaos in the wake of the federal government's erratic approach to cutting funding for so many of the services Lake County provides, the RIFL Act will help us meet the demands of the moment.

And you may all remember just a short time ago, um, the Lake County Board or the Gun Violence Prevention Initiative faced a funding shortage because of downstream impacts from the federal cuts.

Um the state government um had failed to tie in a timely manner provide the funds that they had promised in order to keep our G VPI staff employed.

And it was the Lake County board that stepped in and had to fill that gap.

Uh, support for the RIFL Act will help prevent that type of situation for the Lake County Board in the future.

Uh so that's what I mean when I say um, you know, it just makes sense for the Lake County Board to come out in full support of um the RIFEL Act.

I'd also like to share with you, uh, I'd like to remind everyone that in our in at our January County Board meeting, uh, I believe it was January, might have been December, um, we celebrated the achievements of the Lake County Board in 2025.

And one of the things that are the status uh statistical data that we shared was since the GDPI was founded in 2022, Lake County has seen a 74% drop in firearm homicides.

This is among the highest rate of success for CVI programs and violence prevention programs anywhere in the country.

And, you know, I for one don't want to, I don't, I don't want to cut any fundings from from the health department, workforce development.

I don't want to, or um, community development, I don't want to see their funds cut, but I also want to see um the GVPI uh continue to do the great work that it's been doing for in Lake County for the last four years.

Um there's just uh I think we're gonna in order to deal with this moment of chaos that we're in, we have to look for a lot of different approaches in order to fill all these impending uh funding gaps that we're facing.

Uh so I strongly urge you all to vote in favor of asking the county board uh to pass this resolution.

I will um just add two more things.

Currently, this week, Cook, DuPage, and Champaign counties are considering the very same resolution that we're asking you to consider today.

Uh so one final um, I'll just repeat what I started with.

The fact the cost of gun injury is exorbitant, and Illinois taxpayers should not have to pay for all of it alone.

I think this is a reasonable and um it's a reasonable ask of fire manufacturers.

It will not put them out of business, and great care has been taken to make sure that it will not put them out of business.

Uh so I urge you all to support Dr.

Douglas and this bill, and I will wrap up my comments there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah, for your continued engagement and passion on this subject.

You've been our real champion for this, and we respect and honor what you've been doing in this field.

So first, a little personal disclosure.

My wife um works on the Illinois violent death reporting system, has worked with the Lake County Coroner and State's attorney Reinhardt.

Uh so not only is this a topic of policymaking from for myself and my constituents, but also it's a dinner table discussion sometimes.

So, and I didn't know about uh pregnant women and that statistic, the horrible statistic there.

But Dr.

Douglas, I'm my main question is um, you may know that this committee endorsed uh gun safety legislation last year, which was which got passed, and it's always a concern of us that you know guns are responsibly stored and kept away from children and and people in in despair.

Um how will this um bill um compel or perhaps the better verb is um guide uh gun makers into promoting gun safety if it does it all.

And if you kind of walk me through this, I'm sure you've thought about this a lot.

Uh thank you for their question.

Uh you know, the the strategies to make guns safer, the technology has existed for decades.

Uh in fact, during President Clinton's administration, they considered adding biometrics uh to firearms with Smith and Wesson, but Smith and Weston was alienated and blackballed from the firearm industry because of their negotiations with President Clinton and they backed away from the table.

So this industry is not um is not naive to the strategies that reduce gun injury.

They know where their products end up.

They know how these products end up in in communities that have been disinvested.

They know um they know the strategies to make their products safer.

They just don't have a reason to invest in them.

And we haven't given them a reason to invest in them.

And if you, you know, I encourage you to talk to some of the Lake County uh peacemakers about how do firearms get into the communities that they patrol.

And a lot of them will tell you that they come in on freight trains that stop in their communities and get offloaded.

Uh trains somehow break down in their communities and those guns come off the train and the train keeps going.

You know, it sounds crazy, but that is the type of unfortunately the industry that we're dealing with.

And when you don't pay for the consequences of your product, then you fuel the fear and the trauma that makes people buy your product.

So, you know, I uh Chair Wazig, the strategies are there.

They just don't have a reason or motivation to invest in them because they don't profit from making firearms safer.

So let me drill down a little bit further on that.

Is this going to somehow change the behavior of gun makers if they're um essentially funding a pool for education prevention um, you know, victims um injuries.

Yeah, I believe so.

And it's what we've seen in other industries.

You know, workers' compensation uh was mentioned on the the one-pager fact sheet, you know, a hundred years ago.

Many of you remember when you were injured on the job, you know, it was the risk of the employment you took.

It was uh you knew you knew that this was a risk of taking this employment until construction firms and and industry started losing those lawsuits, and there was no cap on what they had to pay out.

And so businesses and construction firms came begging for a solution, and that was workers' compensation where they would make their injured employees as whole as possible.

And in return, they wouldn't be held uh liable for their workplace accidents.

And for over a hundred years, that has revolutionized workplace safety and led to drastic reductions and workplace deaths.

We've seen the same approach in a number of industries, the chemical and nuclear engineering industry, the pharmaceutical industry, um, the tobacco industry.

Uh I mean, the the list goes on and on of industries that have to contribute to no fault pro fund programs.

Um, and many of them have to do so not when a catastrophe happens, but in the event.

And we know that catastrophe is happening in our communities every single day.

And the last example, uh, the state guarantee association, uh, insurance providers have to contribute to a fund in the event that they go bankrupt and can't render the insurance products they promised.

Uh so I think that this is a light ask of this industry when we know that they're generating cost year in and year out and and uh their products are are causing such senseless deaths in our community amongst our children and our our mothers.

Thanks.

And just to um touch upon the point that uh Paul was talking about in terms of liability.

You know, if if you fall off a step ladder, you can sue the manufacturer.

If you are hit by somebody, they have liability insurance and so do you, it's state law.

Um, if you breathe asbestos, you can sue the producer of the asbestos and any number of things that have you know are not shielded from product liability.

Isn't the the bigger question here removing the federal shield on product liability?

And even if we do this in Illinois, then that will still exist, right?

Yeah, absolutely.

Uh ideally this law was would have never been passed in 2005, and we would be able to hold you know manufacturers liable for the cost and the harm that their products create.

Unfortunately, uh Congress over the last 21 years has been unable to uh repeal that particular piece of legislation, which means we have to think of innovative ways as local and state governments to work around you know the the um the laws that our federal government have created for us, but it's a very I mean the the placa that law is a very violent law is uh and and as a result we've seen the consequences of shielding an industry from its con uh from from its for-profit activities.

Thanks.

And just two requests.

One, if you could circulate the transcript of your remarks to us, yes.

Uh so we can read it at a later date and probably discuss it later.

But also, you've probably witnessed and operated on many victims of of gun violence.

Can you tell us a story on how this bill might have helped some of those people that come into your surgical suite?

Yeah, absolutely.

Um, every day we we see victims of gun violence.

I've I mean, I've seen infants before they learn to mutter the two-world syllables, mama and data with bullet wounds in their forehead.

I've seen uh men at the end of long illustrious careers in public service lives ended because they were driving on the Dan Ryan at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Um, you know, the uh to explain what the experience is like for a surgeon who sees this every day is um almost impossible.

You just have to be in the room and see it.

Um we uh for the for the patients I take care of, many of them uh I'm here to uh because they can't be here.

Um this is their redemption, and I'm trying to be that uh to provide redemption for them for the people that you know will the thousands and thousands of people generations that we've lost as a result of this senseless um injuries, deaths, and suicides.

Uh I believe that uh accountability makes a difference.

Holding manufacturers accountable changes behavior and changes outcomes in our communities.

And so ultimately, I think that this legislation is positioned to do exactly that.

Well, thanks for your great skill and your compassion and your advocacy uh and coming to talk to us today.

Um does anybody have a very short question for Dr.

Douglas?

Yes.

Oh, yeah, to uh try to pass this type of legislation.

Yes, it will be.

We um we're hoping that Illinois selfishly leads the rest of the country in this, but we uh last week we've gotten news that Hawaii and New York have introduced this same exact legislation to their state uh uh general assembly.

Uh so now it's a race.

Um, but we uh yes, we hope that the state of Illinois leads the rest of the country and in establishing reestablishing accountability for this industry.

And there's there's a lot of states watching to see what we do with this legislation.

Yeah, I just want to say, wow, you know, there could not be a better witness, truth teller to what is going on than somebody like you who operates on these people day in and day out.

And to me, you're a hero.

Amy, you're just an absolute hero.

It's gotta be the hardest thing in the world to, you know, not only you're using your expertise, but it's the emotional piece of you know, confronting this type of violence every day.

So we really appreciate you and all your passion and skills.

Thank you.

Thank you for the time.

Thank you.

Do we have a consensus to move this forward to support it?

Yeah, a majority.

Thank you.

We will discuss this again.

Okay, thank you.

Uh moving on, moving on to item 8.4.

Uh federal 8.3, sorry.

Federal legislative update.

Yeah, I'll just briefly introduce Clayton Cox and Scott Binkley.

Uh, if you were unaware, Greg Bales uh moved on from Maguire Woods Consulting.

We still have the contract with Maguire Woods Consulting, and they do have a bench of uh uh of team members that are represented uh representing us in Washington, DC.

So uh Clayton and Scott, if you guys want to introduce yourself and then give us uh the the brief federal update, that would be fantastic.

Thanks, Scott.

You want to start?

Sure.

Yeah, no.

Uh great to be with you, uh, Mr.

Chairman and uh committee members.

Uh Matt, thanks for that introduction.

As uh Matt mentioned, uh, we are uh recently have taken over for Greg, who was a um valued member of the McGuire Woods consulting team.

Uh slightly different kind of arrangement.

Um I sit in Washington, DC as opposed to Chicago.

Um and Clayton spends time uh both in DC and then um back in Atlanta.

Um, but he can go into more of his background um in a second.

Um I started here in DC um about 15 or 16 years ago on Capitol Hill for a uh Republican congressman named Tom Price.

He was the House budget chairman at the time um and spent a uh uh a number of years in his office in a number of different legislative capacities before leaving Capitol Hill and going to do campaigns for Congress, U.S.

Senate, uh, and governors races across the country.

Came back to DC to work for the Republican Governors Association, uh, went on to run the Republican Lieutenant Governors Association, uh, so have uh uh a vast network of uh statewide contacts throughout the country.

Um, but focus a lot of our work uh on our on the federal affairs side and uh Clayton and I both uh coincidentally being from Georgia uh started with a number of public sector clients in from Georgia.

Um we represent the largest county in Georgia, Fulton County.

Uh we've expanded that work to other counties and cities and local government clients across Georgia and the Southeast.

Um and and now have really taken that um kind of nationally and represent um um uh local government clients all over the country.

And we value the work.

Um we, you know, um, you know, being contract lobbyists, there's you we work with a range of clients, but we feel that you know our local government clients give us, you know, uh a sense of uh really doing some good and doing uh providing things like um appropriations funding for priority projects.

Um and uh we're excited to get to work with you and excited to provide this report um and answer any questions you have.

So I'll kick it over to Clayton um to tell you a little bit about a little bit about himself.

Good to be with everybody.

I'm Clayton Cox.

Um, I'm a senior vice president here at McGuire Woods Consulting and uh team up with Scott a lot.

I think we are really emphatic on covering both sides of the aisle and making sure that our uh clients are fully covered.

Um so I think we're excited that you guys get uh two for the price of wanting of both of us being involved.

Um but uh my background, I started on the hill with Senator McCaskill uh from neighboring Missouri and uh then moved on to campaign fundraising where I worked uh for President Obama's campaign in 2012, uh worked for his inauguration and then back over to the DNC.

Where I was the uh Midwestern and Southern finance director doing fundraising, uh worked for Secretary Clinton in 2016 and then uh went over with the labor secretary Tom Perez uh to the DNC when he took over in 2017, was senior advisor and then was the head of national fundraising for four years.

So a pretty extensive uh background in fundraising national politics, uh working with a few different uh folks running for president.

And so um, in that in that role, was able to uh develop lots of contacts and folks that I've utilized uh since joining McGuire Woods in 2021, uh, when President uh Biden took over, I decided to go into the private sector.

And like Scott said, started this practice focusing on public entities and really zeroing in on something I enjoy doing, which is uh bringing down federal dollars and helping our local governments um talk about the great work that they're doing.

There's so many things just from hearing today how thoughtful everyone here is, uh, and I applaud you guys at that.

Um, knowing that all the work that you're doing that you're thinking about, that's really where the rubber meets the road.

And so it's important that um your delegations in DC understand what you're thinking, what you guys are working on, and that uh we help bring some of those uh federal dollars down.

And I think in an environment like the last year or so, make sure that we're protecting as much as possible while also uh going on offense where we can.

Um, I'm quite excited to be part of this team.

And uh I think we wanted to, besides giving an intro and saying hello, wanted to quickly update everyone on um the federal budget situation, get into uh some good news with uh your congressionally directed spending request, and then quickly talk about, as the chairman said, uh the DC trip that's coming up uh in about three weeks.

So with that, I think I'll let Scott kick it back over to him uh to talk about uh the government shutdown, which is sure.

Look like any moment.

Yeah, no, we come with good news.

Um, but it's a good moment to just um layer in kind of the um the aside here that obviously we understand that your your congressional delegation and makeup of uh there is pretty uniformly democratic.

However, obviously, uh, with Republicans controlling the House, the Senate, and the White House uh bipartisan approach um, you know, is often necessary.

And of course, that will continue to change over the years.

And um, you know, regardless of the makeup of your delegation um and the White House and the Senate and who's running uh the House uh will have the bipartisan team here for you.

So uh that said, Republicans in the House have just passed um this uh large spending bill, um, bringing us out of this short weekend long shutdown.

Uh to back up a little bit, you'll remember the the elongated shutdown at the end of last year was ended with a two-month continuing resolution.

Uh that brought us to Friday of last week.

Uh the Senate voted uh favorably for this package to pass, uh, kicking it back to the House.

The uh the issue at hand now, um, and I think so the House passed um uh the spending bill along with this two-week stopgap, Department of Homeland Security um kind of a funding patch, if you will.

And the idea is that they've passed the majority of the budget, and that's great news for us and our work together, being that that's the bills that have passed um and that are no longer being considered, uh our earmarks are congressionally directed spending requests are housed in those bills.

Uh the bill that is can still being debated is the the Homeland Security bill uh due to issues around ice and funding for ice and some democratic requests that um certain things be considered uh before passing that piece of the appropriations pie.

And so they'll work on that obstensibly for the next two weeks.

It's really 10 days now that a few days have gone by since they've made this deal.

Um the the I think that most would agree here in DC that that's going to be very difficult to do in the next 10 days.

So even though we've now moved out of a shutdown today, we're setting ourselves up for another uh more difficult um uh negotiation process for the next 10 days, and likely you know, another um, you know, um kind of impasse here uh 10 days from now.

So we will keep you in the loop as that progresses and what we're hearing and what we're seeing um here in DC.

But you know, the good news is that um this is continuing to move forward, and that is great news for the the appropriations request that the county has made for the federal government.

Um I'll kick it back to Clayton to talk about those specific earmarks that um that you guys have requested that were contained in these bills that passed just a moment ago.

Yes, um, just as a uh term of parlance, we earmarks is kind of the shorthand that's used on the hill to refer to um what's now called in the Senate congressionally directed spending in the House.

It's called community project funding, but that is how um you get your uh members of Congress to earmark funds um for specific projects uh that cannot go towards uh any sort of private sector entity, but these are public entities.

Um Lake County has been very successful in this.

Um this year, Lake County had three uh congressionally directed spending requests uh that it got into appropriations bills.

Um two were the interior bill that passed about two weeks ago.

Um we're just awaiting on the president's signature, which we do not anticipate being a problem.

Um those two projects each received uh $1,092,000 uh for both.

Uh one was the water system improvement, the uh water system improvements, the other is the Antioch Township sanitary sewer improvements.

Um the final year mark that we were waiting on, and we'll use these terms interchangeably, but the final one we're waiting, we were waiting on was the Lakeside Tower rehabilitation, uh, which was in the uh transportation uh housing and urban development, the THUD appropriations bill, uh, which was passed uh about an hour ago.

So um you've got three appropriations projects that was a million dollars, um three of them for a total of about uh 3.2 million, which is I think great, and I think uh is sort of at definitely ahead of the curb compared to other uh municipal clients that we've seen across the country.

Um so I applaud the county and getting that done.

I know the county has um a great booklet on capital projects that have been funded and other ones that are coming down the pipe uh during the pipeline.

So I think that's really important for this next period that we're entering into, which uh now that appropriations is done, with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security bill, um, a lot of offices on the Hill will move on to the next round of appropriations.

And so um over the next six weeks, you will see our senators, our members of Congress uh asking for our projects that we want to submit, which is something that we will um speak with our senators that we will speak with our members of Congress with uh during that trip to DC in about three weeks, uh, where NACO will also be discussed, or also be attended.

Um so it's a it's a great opportunity for uh the chairman for other commissioners and for staff um to enter interface with our delegation.

Um the final thing I would add is that uh as Scott said, you know, there's gonna be this Homeland Security, I think, discussion every couple, you know, two weeks from now.

That will probably result in another continuing resolution.

I think that will take up a lot of oxygen.

It's an election year.

Um, so that there's a little less time for um legislation and sort of deal making.

Um also the appropriations bills are through the end of the fiscal year, so they run through the end of September.

Um, so we're gonna kind of be back in this appropriations dance probably this summer.

Um, and then once the summer ends, then folks will really be earnestly campaigning.

So I think it won't be the most ambitious legislative year.

There's also very tight margins in the House and the Senate.

Um, but we will continue to monitor those things.

We'll continue to look for legislation.

We'll work with partners at NACO on what the sort of federal agenda is.

But I think priority number one is making sure that we bring down federal dollars that um the county is eligible for.

So with that, um, we'd love to take any questions, anything else um that folks have for us.

Thanks, gentlemen.

Questions for Clayton and Scott.

Just one sort of fundamental question.

I I suppose this um is is more of a strategic sort of way of addressing this.

But given this is an election year, there's there's turmoil over um DHS and things like that.

You know, our priorities are to keep our federal dollars for health care.

And of course, to address the the housing crisis.

So what would you suggest would be a strategy when we come to Washington in a couple weeks?

I think number one is making our partners aware so that they are out there, you know, on the committees of jurisdiction there on of other things that they're interfacing with, that they're becoming aware of grants or other opportunities of things coming down the uh down the pike.

Um I also think it's really important, and we've told a lot of our clients just to make sure you audit every federal dollar that you get in the event that something maybe you know, a couple weeks ago, SAMHSA money was turned off uh for 24 hours.

So just making sure that the county knows where all these money's got monies are coming from, even if it's as a subgrantee or something like that, sort of know so that we can we can notify our elected officials if anything's happening.

I think we want to make sure we play a really good defense, and that means really knowing where everything's coming from and making sure our delegations aware, and then also play some offense, which are things like federal grants that are coming down the pipeline, and then uh CDS requests and others.

It does seem like the administration is gonna start trying to do more in some of these spaces.

So um, especially with affordable housing, that's sort of on their agenda.

So I think there will be some opportunities.

Um we'll have to see what what they're putting out in their RFPs and what kind of information they're asking for and what kind of strings they're putting around federal grants and how that aligns with the county.

But um, I do think that you know we should be on the on the lookout for those things.

So I was just gonna mention that.

A little bit specific.

Um have you connected with representative Schneider's office yet?

Uh have you lined up some staff, you know, presence and some FaceTime with uh representative Schneider.

We're just he's he represents most of the Lake County, so he's sort of our number one guy there.

Uh I get why he's important.

He was he carried two of your three uh earmarks.

Um yes, I've been uh dealing with the chief of staff and his scheduler.

Um we're working on identifying a time originally the the first date that we offered sort of that Monday.

They don't just like do meetings on fly-in days.

Um so they're getting back to me on a time, but uh we are in good contact and hopefully setting up a meeting with them directly.

It seems like they are uh trying to push that as well.

Okay, thank you.

Um Mr.

Chairman, if you don't mind, I was just gonna go back to your your last question and raise one additional point being that you know when you are a local government like you guys are without Republican representative, who then should go to the administration and do our bidding.

I think one thing that's important is to to potentially go through coalition partners first.

We do a lot of obviously work with the National Association of Counties, as I know you guys do.

So to check with them.

Uh Clayton represent uh uh Clayton raised the um example of the SAMHSA funding.

And I think that part of the thing that really broke that through in the 24 hour period that they reverse course was the amount of uh outreach they had from coalition partners of local governments, things like NACO and and letting you know areas that are represented by Republicans call the White House uh and letting us, you know, um, you know, go through our coalition partners as opposed to popping our head up and saying, you know, here we are to talk about this funding stream uh to a you know a local government that you know may not be one of uh uh you know a Trump friendly county, if that makes sense.

Yes, we have a question for you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm not sure that I understand.

So we get a lot of federal funds um through the uh, you know, let's just say for uh from Congressman Schneider.

So if I'm am I hearing you say that we should be working through like NACO to sort of stay under the radar from the Trump administration so they don't know that Lake County, a democratic county is looking for funding.

My uh specific example was through uh was to inquire about a you know a grant that you were supposed to receive that had been turned off.

No, not on things like appropriations requests.

There's obviously still both Republicans and Democrats participating in that process.

My I think it's the comment was related to an emergency you know outreach.

Should Lake County go directly to the administration?

Maybe not.

Maybe we should go through you know coalition partners like NACO um to prevent to present a kind of bipartisan approach to the administration in a time of emergency when uh a program that you had been told you were going to receive funding for had been turned off unilaterally without any sort of notice or background.

Okay, thank you.

So, sort of like that SAMHSA grant, which got turned back on, you know.

So, yeah, and and just so you know that is what we do.

We work very closely with NACO and uh the other member counties.

Uh, we're not trying to have one off discussions with the White House.

You know, we work through those parameters in the county.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Yes, Paul.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh thanks for the overview uh of your guys' work and background.

Um just want to follow up on that last thread, which is you know, you mentioned you guys have relationships with NACO, and I think that's obviously important for us to understand because like the situation where all of the national funding for BH grants was terminated and then turned back on 24 hours.

Oops.

Um, you know, when that happens, it's not us.

It's not, it's not we're not being targeted.

It's not a lake county issue.

It's a national issue.

And so for you guys to have those relationships and be in touch with them is important and important for us to know.

Uh and sometimes you may be in touch with uh leadership of NACO and get updates from them quicker than they're gonna get an email out to the entire membership nationally, et cetera.

So um I'm I'm happy to hear you guys say that and look forward to seeing that collaboration at work on our behalf.

Yes, absolutely.

Any other questions for Clayton or Scott?

Okay, I think we're good.

And gentlemen, please stay tuned.

We're going to be just discussing a NACO resolution in a couple of minutes.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

On to item 8.4.

8.5.

Point five.

One behind.

I apologize.

So 8.4, we've kind of handled throughout the discussions today under A2 and A3.

We don't have a significant number of uh bills.

Um Clayton and Scott just talked about some of the appropriations bills that have passed federally, and then um we did touch on some of the states.

So there was there's nothing remaining under A4.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

Well, on A point.

So A5 is a discussion regarding proposed NACO um interim policy resolutions.

So annually uh at the annual conference in July, NACO solicits uh from COP um uh membership counties on policy resolutions, things of importance for our particular counties or things that may impact all counties uh that they will put into their American county platform, which is their legislative program and how they lobby.

Member Clark is a vice chair of the technology and telecommunications committee has been involved in numerous discussions regarding AI, AI policy setting at the federal level.

Um and there was some uh an executive order that was issued earlier uh I'm sorry at the tail end of last year related to um state or local artificial intelligence laws and uh limiting counties the ability to limiting states and counties from from setting their own AI policies and potential for some um some concerns related to the holding back of federal funding if local policies or state policies were issued regarding artificial intelligence.

So this is something I talked a lot about with Greg Bales.

There were still some concerns uh with respect to uh what a local AI policy looks like, and uh, but to ensure that we're getting out our concerns related to that, there was a a request by one partner county in Wayne County, Michigan.

Uh one of their commissioners was drafting this this uh policy resolution uh interim.

And uh member Clark requested to at least be a part of the conversation and after discussion and review, it aligned with things that we've talked about on the technology committee previously and uh on this committee with respect to not uh trumping our local authorities.

And so this resolution was drafted, and member Clark did um put her name on it as it relates to submission to NACO for an interim.

I guess I I didn't finish my earlier thought, which was annually there's they're correct requesting these policy uh resolutions.

They allow for an interim submission at the legislative conference every year for things that have come up in the middle of the year that that would support um or give NACO that direction to support or uh oppose certain things at the federal government through the July uh time for full submission.

So we'd submit this interim, and then the plan would be they would submit this uh also in July again as a full resolution.

So just for clarification, Matt, what we're talking about is for NACO to consider a resolution that would preserve our ability to create a local AI policy.

Am I right about that?

Correct.

That's what we're stating that we just want to preserve our local authority to set our own policies related to artificial intelligence, and that uh federal funding should not be withheld related to just jurisdictions ability to set its own AI policy.

Okay, remember member Clark was on, she just based on the length of this meeting was unable to stay on.

Okay, yes, Jessica.

Can you give an example of an AI policy?

Like what do we well the question that we continue to have uh back and forth on with Greg, in that it it was more at the state level with respect to like how they're regulating artificial intelligence, the use of um within an organization or what are we talking about specifically?

Yeah, anyone who can answer Frank as a comment.

Yes, okay.

So knowing a little bit of the legislative history, HR1 had a provision in there that would have permanently restricted states from enacting their own AI policies or governance laws.

There was bipartisan objection to that provision.

It was taken out.

The White House is trying to do it via executive order, which I'm sure will be contested in court.

But there are several states that are looking to enact their own AI laws that will create some limitations, governance operating for AI that uh I don't know if it's both public and private, but generally operating uh restrictions for AI in certain circumstances.

Given the fact that there's so much uncertainty over the potential benefits and risks to AI, I heard just this morning one business tech analyst say it's a 25 to 30 percent chance there'll be significant job losses from over deployment of AI.

And there's also a 20 to 25 percent chance that unrestricted growth of AI could result in severe damage to the future of humanity.

I don't know if that's extinction level terminator level events, but it's um we are seeing unregulated growth, and the fact that our federal government is not putting in place guardrails to protect us is concerning to me.

So I'm supportive of uh member Clark's efforts to get some policy statements on the record that states and local governments should have some regulatory authority for sure.

Thank you.

Yes, the same.

But would some of those AI policies be our employees can use AI for X, Y, and Z, or which what type of policies are we looking at?

I mean that the the comment was contemplated that is that what they're referring to when they say local AI policy, that is it down to that level as to what we can or cannot use here at Lake County for our work.

Okay, understood.

And to be clear, we're we're still formulating an AI approach, right?

We we don't quite know what we want to do.

We did put our we have put policies in place and we have a process to evaluate artificial intelligence, its safety and use within Lake County government currently.

So that's staff policy, right?

That's a staff level policy.

Right, right.

There's no ordinance that we've drafted or passed that regulate in any way, and there's no federal regulation of it that we know of, yeah.

Correct.

Okay.

So we are asking for consensus to submit this to ACO, NACO.

Yeah, it has been submitted with member clerk's name on it at this point.

This was to notify the committee, as I have with any other policy resolutions that this is going.

Lake County's name certainly is on it as as uh as she has referenced as a board member of Lake County, Illinois.

So unless there were any significant concerns, I'd certainly be able to pass those along to member Clark or you can read those through.

Any objections to submitting this as a proposed policy?

Okay.

I think we're good then.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

Do you have a report today?

There's no county administrators report.

Okay, there's no executive session.

And any member remarks or requests.

Okay.

Good then.

I moved to adjourn, and our next meeting is March 3rd.