Printed Page 1050, Feb. 28
| Printed Page 1070, Feb. 28
|
Printed Page 1050, Feb. 28
| Printed Page 1070, Feb. 28
| Rep. A. YOUNG moved to waive Rule 6.1, which was agreed to.
Rep. HASKINS stated that with regard to printing the Rule being cited stated that you could waive the printing of a Bill and it stated the procedure for doing that, but in this case it had been already printed. He stated that the House was dealing with a question of whether or not it should be taken up in the regular order on the Calendar with a provision that you have to wait 24 hours or whether it was going to be taken up under a Special Order.
Rep. SHEHEEN stated that Rule 5.10 had nothing to do with the order of the Calendar and that was under Rule 6.3.
Rep. McELVEEN stated that Rule 5.10 had been amended a couple of years ago to require a Bill to actually be on the desk for one statewide legislative day. He stated that the House was not going to get that opportunity if it were set for Special Order.
Rep. FELDER stated that the Rules postured the House in the position to be able to insist on Special Order and once that was done, then you deal with the Bill even if it had been printed but not on the Calendar for 24 hours. He stated that waiving the printing Rule was improper at this time and the question was whether the House would set it for Special Order.
Rep. McTEER stated that there was a difference between what Rule 6.3 stated and what Rule 5.10 stated. He stated that Rule 6.3 dealt with setting a Bill for Special Order and that Rule 5.10 did not apply to a majority and that it was designed to protect the individual members of the House.
Rep. McELVEEN stated that the whole reason for Rules was to have an orderly procession of legislation so that everybody can be informed and participate. He stated that one member of the Body could insist on Special Orders but the right of the same member to have the right to consider it for a day would be disregarded.
The SPEAKER stated that the Point of Order was overruled as the House could set a Bill for Special Order. He referred back to the June, 1981, Point of Order and previous Points that he had reviewed.
Rep. HUFF continued speaking.
Reps. ROGERS and SHEHEEN spoke against the Resolution.
Rep. HUFF spoke in favor of the Resolution.
Change "Feb. 28" to "March 1".
Rep. BAXLEY explained the amendment.
Rep. HUFF moved to table the amendment.
Rep. SCOTT demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Bailey Brown, H. Cain Cato Chamblee Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Fair Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Hallman Harrell Harrison Harvin Haskins Herdklotz Huff Hutson Jaskwhich Jennings Keegan Kelley Kennedy Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Marchbanks Mason Meacham Quinn Rice Richardson Riser Robinson Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Stuart Townsend Tripp Trotter Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Wright Young, A. Young, J.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Baxley Beatty Boan Breeland Brown, G.
Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Canty Carnell Cave Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cromer Elliott Govan Harris, J. Harris, P. Harwell Hines Hodges Howard Inabinett Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Lloyd Martin McElveen McMahand McTeer Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Rhoad Rogers Scott Sheheen Shissias Spearman Stille Stoddard Thomas Tucker Whipper, L. White Wilder Wilkes Williams Worley
So, the amendment was tabled.
The question then recurred to the adoption of the Resolution.
Rep. SCOTT demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.
The Resolution was adopted by a division vote of 74 to 33.
The following was introduced:
H. 3696 -- Rules Committee: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO SET BY SPECIAL ORDER H.3613, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA FAMILY INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 1995, FOR SECOND READING OR OTHER CONSIDERATION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SECOND READING OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF H.3534 AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE THIRD READING SPECIAL ORDER CONSIDERATION OF H.3613 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE THIRD READING OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF H.3534.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That H.3613 is set by special order for second reading or other consideration immediately following second reading or other disposition of H.3534 and is set for third reading special order consideration immediately following the third reading or other disposition of H.3534, and such third reading special order consideration of H.3613 to continue
Rep. HUFF explained the Resolution.
Rep. HODGES spoke against the Resolution.
Rep. BAXLEY proposed the following Amendment No. 1, which was tabled.
Add on line 23, after the "immediately" the following:
upon the conclusion of the uncontested Calendar, on Wednesday, March 1, Delete remainder.
Rep. BAXLEY explained the amendment.
Rep. HUFF moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to by a division vote of 62 to 36.
The Resolution was then adopted.
Rep. HUFF moved that the House recede until 2:45 P.M., which was adopted.
At 2:45 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
The question of a quorum was raised. A quorum was later present.
Rep. SHEHEEN moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, March 1, which was adopted.
H. 3228 -- Reps. Neilson, Cain, McMahand, Littlejohn, Meacham, Hallman, Rice,
L. Whipper, White, Simrill, Jaskwhich, Elliott, Whatley, Herdklotz, Easterday,
Haskins, Seithel, Davenport and Limehouse: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-100, AS
AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EQUAL RIGHTS OF
PARENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BOTH CUSTODIAL AND NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS HAVE
THE
RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR CHILDREN'S SCHOOL ACTIVITIES.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3305 -- Reps. Kennedy, Whatley, Askins, Delleney, McCraw, S. Whipper and Phillips: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 57-5-1140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSTALLATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ENTRANCES AND APRONS, SO AS TO REQUIRE INSTALLATION FOR EXISTING BUSINESS FACILITIES AND TO LIMIT THE LENGTH OF AN ENTRANCE.
The Committee on Education and Public Works proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\BBM\9930CM.95).
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 1 in its entirety and inserting:
/SECTION 1. Section 57-5-1140 of the 1976 Code, as added by Section 48A, Part II, Act 501 of 1992, is amended to read:
"Section 57-5-1140. (A) The department shall construct at its expense with its maintenance forces the portion within the right-of-way of entrances and aprons to state highways at any point necessary to render adequate ingress and egress to the abutting property at locations where the driveways will not constitute hazardous conditions.
(B) The driveways must be of access to existing developed property or property that is being developed for the personal use of the owner and not for speculative or resale purposes. An entrance ten feet wide (paved portion) measured at right angles to the centerline of the driveway is the maximum width for one-way traffic. An entrance sixteen feet wide (paved portion) is the maximum width for two-way traffic. If pipe culvert is necessary for drainage, the department shall install the amount necessary for twelve inch, fifteen inch, eighteen inch, twenty-four inch, or thirty inch pipe. Should the driveway installation require pipe larger than thirty inches, the department may install the pipe and charge the homeowner for the difference in cost between thirty inch pipe and larger diameter pipe required.
(C) The driveways must be of access to existing developed property
or property that is being developed for the business use of the owners. An
entrance twenty feet wide (paved portion) measured at right angles to the
centerline of the driveway is the maximum width for one-way traffic. An
entrance fifty feet wide (paved portion) is the maximum width for two-way
traffic. If a pipe culvert is necessary for drainage, the department may
install the pipe at the business owner's expense.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. KENNEDY explained the amendment.
Rep. TUCKER objected to the Bill.
Rep. WALKER made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since printed copies of the Bill have not been upon the desks of the members for one day.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3666 -- Education and Public Works Committee: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 4, CODE
OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 37 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE
COUNTIES TO ESTABLISH OPTIONAL METHODS FOR THE FINANCING OF TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES INCLUDING THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, AND OPERATION
OF
HIGHWAYS, ROADS, STREETS, BRIDGES, AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION-RELATED PROJECTS
EITHER ALONE, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, OR JOINTLY-OPERATED PROJECTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, AND AMEND SECTION 57-5-1330, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY
NOT
DESIGNATE AS A TURNPIKE FACILITY ANY HIGHWAY, ROAD, BRIDGE, OR OTHER
TRANSPORTATION FACILITY FUNDED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY A LOCAL OPTION SALES
AND
USE TAX AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 37 OF TITLE 4.
Rep. TRIPP made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since printed copies of the Bill have not been upon the desks of the members for one day.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
Rep. TUCKER withdrew his objection to the following Bill.
H. 3305 -- Reps. Kennedy, Whatley, Askins, Delleney, McCraw, S. Whipper and Phillips: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 57-5-1140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSTALLATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ENTRANCES AND APRONS, SO AS TO REQUIRE INSTALLATION FOR EXISTING BUSINESS FACILITIES AND TO LIMIT THE LENGTH OF AN ENTRANCE.
The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up.
H. 3646 -- Reps. Hodges and McElveen: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICES TO BE FILLED BY ELECTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DURING ITS 1995 SESSION TO REFRAIN FROM VISITING THE STATE HOUSE, BLATT BUILDING, GRESSETTE BUILDING, OR ANY OTHER BUILDINGS OF THE STATE CAPITOL COMPLEX FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING MEMBERS AND CAMPAIGNING FOR OFFICE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE LEGISLATIVE SCREENING COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED ITS REPORT REGARDING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CANDIDATES FOR THE JUDICIAL OFFICES TO WHICH THE CANDIDATES SEEK ELECTION.
Amend Title To Conform
Whereas, numerous candidates for judicial offices to be filled by election of the General Assembly during its 1995 session are presently visiting the State House and the state Capitol Complex each legislative day to further their judicial candidacy; and
Whereas, although under present law no pledges to any candidate can be made by a member of the General Assembly until the legislative screening committee has rendered its findings in regard to the candidates for that office, it is perfectly permissible for these candidates to greet
Whereas, the practice of visiting the State House daily for purposes of greeting members of the General Assembly is a demanding and trying experience not only for the members of the General Assembly but most certainly for the candidates themselves thereby taking away from the productive work these excellent and capable individuals could be doing elsewhere; and
Whereas, the members of the General Assembly, by this resolution, are desirous of finding a solution to this situation. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the members of the General Assembly hereby request candidates for judicial offices to be filled by election of the General Assembly during its 1995 session to refrain from visiting the State House, Blatt Building, Gressette Building, or any other buildings of the state Capitol Complex for the purpose of meeting members and campaigning for office until such time as the legislative screening committee has rendered its report regarding the qualifications of the candidates for the judicial offices to which the candidates seek election, unless the candidate makes an appointment to visit the member in his State House Office.
Rep. SIMRILL proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\DKA\3737CM.95), which was adopted.
Amend the Concurrent Resolution, as and if amended, by inserting on page 2, before the period on line 15, /, unless the candidate makes an appointment to visit the member in his State House Office/
Amend title to conform.
Rep. TRIPP explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
The Concurrent Resolution, as amended, was adopted and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up.
H. 3542 -- Reps. McElveen, Richardson, G. Brown, Canty, Keyserling, Neal and J. Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE GOVERNOR, STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND
Rep. McELVEEN explained the Concurrent Resolution.
Rep. H. BROWN moved to table the Resolution.
Rep. WHITE demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Bailey Brown, H. Cain Cato Chamblee Dantzler Easterday Fair Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Harwell Herdklotz Hutson Jaskwhich Keegan Kelley Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Marchbanks Rhoad Riser Robinson Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Smith, D. Smith, R. Stoddard Tripp Trotter Vaughn Wells Whatley Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Wright
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Baxley Beatty Boan Breeland Brown, G. Brown, T. Carnell Cave Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cotty Cromer Davenport Delleney Govan Harvin Hines
Inabinett Kennedy Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Lloyd Mason McCraw McElveen McMahand McTeer Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Rice Richardson Rogers Sheheen Shissias Spearman Tucker Whipper, L. Whipper, S. White Wilkes Worley Young, J.
So, the Resolution was tabled.
The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up.
S. 476 -- Senator Leventis: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO HELP SOUTH CAROLINA'S COTTON FARMERS AND THE ECONOMY OF THIS STATE BY ENCOURAGING AND APPROVING EMERGENCY ACTION TO ALLOW THE USE OF "STAPLE HERBICIDE".
Rep. FELDER moved to adjourn debate upon the Concurrent Resolution until Wednesday, March 1, which was adopted.
The motion period was dispensed with on motion of Rep. BAILEY.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3534 -- Reps. Wilkins, Tripp, Knotts, Whatley, Harrell, Wofford, A. Young, Hutson, Sandifer, Walker, Littlejohn, Herdklotz, Jaskwhich, Meacham, Fleming, Cain, Kelley, Simrill, Law, Mason, Jennings, Kennedy, Cato, Rice, Klauber, Stuart, Gamble, J. Young, Cotty, Shissias, Haskins, Harrison, Riser, Huff, Robinson, Marchbanks, H. Brown, Witherspoon, Baxley, Lanford, Waldrop and Easterday: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAXATION, BY ADDING CHAPTER 10 ENACTING
Printed Page 1050, Feb. 28
| Printed Page 1070, Feb. 28
|