$30 million in 1998, $40 million in 1999 and $50 million in each of the following four years.

The fight for LWCF monies, however, continues with the House and Senate Appropriations Committee holding the key to unlocking LWCF state assistance. As of this writing, no final action had taken place on this important issue.

AMENDATORY VETO
Although the General Assembly has adjourned, the work of legislative agencies is far from over as bill analysis and contacts with the governor's office continues at a high level.

The governor has a number of choices when he receives a bill; he may approve, veto, amend, or in the case of appropriation bills, he may strike an entire amount or reduce the amount.

If the governor vetoes or amends a bill it is returned to the originating chamber for an acceptance or override of the governor's action. This amendatory veto process is outlined in the sidebar opposite.

(d) The Governor may reduce or veto any item of appropriations in a bill presented to him. Portions of a bill not reduced or vetoed shall become law. An item vetoed shall be returned to the house in which it originated and may become law in the same manner as a vetoed bill. An item reduced in amount shall be returned to the house in which it originated and may be restored to its original amount in the same manner as a vetoed bill except that the required vote shall be a majority of the members elected to each house. If a reduced item is not so restored, it shall become law in the reduced amount.

The most significant innovation in veto power in the 1970 Constitution is the so-called "amendatory veto" authorized by paragraph (e). That paragraph reads:

(e) The governor may return a bill together with specific recommendations for change to the house in which it originated. The bill shall be considered in the same manner as a vetoed bill but the specific recommendations may be accepted by a record vote of a majority of the members elected to each house. Such bill shall be presented again to the governor and if he certifies that such acceptance conforms to his specific recommendations, that bill shall become law. If he does not so certify, he shall return it as a vetoed bill to the house in which it originated.

The amendatory veto is very important since it can be sustained by only a simple majority vote of the House and the Senate, but to override it a three-fifths vote is required. When the governor has amended a bill, the bill is not referred to legislative committee for hearing where testimony pro and con could be presented, but it is voted on by the entire membership.

The procedure has been used extensively by all governors since 1971. In some cases the changes recommended by the governor, and accepted by the General Assembly, were technical and corrective, but in other cases they were substantial and in a few instances amounted to a complete rewriting of the bill.

One example of the use of the amendatory veto to substantially change a bill was one to amend the act that regulated the distribution, sale, and delivery of eyeglass and sunglass lenses and frames charging the prescribing physician or optometrist with responsibility with inspecting the finished eye-ware and certifying to the consumer the provisions of the act had been complied with. The governor recommended that the responsibility for inspection and certification be placed on the manufacturing optician instead of the prescribing physician.

Questions concerning the precise scope of the governor's authority to recommend changes in a bill remain unanswered.

In People ex. rel. Klinger V. Howlett, 50 Ill. 2d 242 (1972), involving the validity of three hills relating to financial assistance for nonpublic school education, the Illinois Supreme Court, while declining to delineate the precise scope of the governor's power to make specific recommendations for change, stated unequivocally that the substitution of a complete new bill is not authorized by the Constitution. The court stated that then Governor Ogilvie's amendments amounted to a complete rewrite of the legislation, which was not read on three different days in each house as is required by another constitutional provision.

- by Peter M. Murphy