Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 10:00 A.M.

Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:

Our Father God, we bow in these moments of prayer in acknowledgment of our needs of Your help. We are insufficient of ourselves, burdened by many anxieties, tempted by many temptations, and often disheartened in our frailty. Stretch out before us wide horizons and illuminate our paths with Your truths. We pray for light enough to walk constructively through this day, for inner strength to carry heavy burdens, to uncompromising determination to follow Your beckoning, for eyes to see Your way, and for wills to follow it fearlessly.

Lord, in Your mercy, hear our prayer. Amen.

Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.

After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

Rep. J. YOUNG moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Ann Weisiger Land, mother of Senator John Land of Manning, which was agreed to.

MEMORANDUM TO:     Clerk of the Senate

Clerk of the House
DATE:                             May 3, 1995
SUBJECT:                         Transcripts of Hearings

In compliance with the provisions of Act 119 of 1975, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
Eugene C. Stoddard
Chairman

Pursuant to Act 119 of 1975, the Committee to Screen Candidate for Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities was convened to consider the qualifications of candidates seeking to fill certain positions on boards of trustees of the state's colleges and universities. The committee conducts such investigation of each candidate as it deems appropriate and reports its findings to the General Assembly prior to the election. It is not the function of the Committee to recommend one candidate over another or to suggest to the individual legislator for whom to vote. The purpose of the committee is instead to determine whether a candidate is qualified and under the statute, the committee's determination in that regard is not binding upon the General Assembly. The candidates are:
Coastal Carolina University - eights seats by congressional district
Seat 1, 1st District
Clark B. Parker (Myrtle Beach)
Seat 3, 2nd District
Leo Richardson (Columbia)
Oran P. Smith (Columbia)
Seat 5, 3rd District
Payne Barnette, Jr. (Greenwood)
Carey J. Green (Seneca)
Seat 7, 4th District

Elaine W. Marks (Spartanburg)
Seat 9, 5th District
Juli S. Powers (Clio)
Seat 11, 6th District
Fred F. DuBard (Florence)
Seat 13, At Large
Franklin Burroughs (Conway)
Seat 15, At Large
Edwin C. Wall, Jr. (Conway)
Medical University of South Carolina - one seat by congressional district for an unexpired term/1996
Second District
H. Donald McElveen (Columbia)
South Carolina State University - three seats by congressional district and one unexpired term/1997 by congressional district
Seat 1, 1st District
Arnold Collins (Charleston)
Moses A. Wilds, Sr. (Charleston)
George Williams (Conway)
Seat 2, 2nd District
Anthony T. Grant (Columbia)
Seat 4, 4th District
Dr. James L. Bullard (Taylors)
Alphonso Allen (Greenville)
Seat 6, 6th District (unexpired term/1997)
Edwin Givens (Columbia)
Dr. Thomas Wilson (Timmonsville)
The Citadel - one at-large seat
Col. Stephen D. Peper (Mount Pleasant)
Dennis J. Rhoad (Charleston)
Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School - three at large seats and one at large seat for an unexpired term/1997
Four Year Term
Betty Henderson (Greenwood)
Vince Rhodes (West Columbia)
Dr. Louise Scott (Florence)
Two Year Term (unexpired 1997)
Russell Hart (Laurens)

The proceedings taken at Room 433, Blatt Building, Columbia South Carolina, on the 19th day of April, 1994, before Elaine M. Boyd, Certified Court Reporter (ID) and Notary Public in and for the State of South Carolina.

Representative Eugene C. Stoddard, Chairman
Representative Jennings G. McAbee
Representative Curtis B. Inabinett, Secretary
Representative Lanny F. Littlejohn

Senator Addison G. Wilson, Vice-Chairman
Senator Warren K. Giese
Senator Maggie W. Glover
Senator James E. Bryan, Jr.

THE CHAIRMAN:     First thing this morning, we first want to thank you for your desire to serve your fellow man, in particular that the salaries involved are very minimis. Really appreciate it in this day and time that those of you who are responsible and would give your time. Senator Giese.
SENATOR GIESE:     Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that all those who are unopposed in the essence of time that we dispense with having them appear before the board. Most of them are incumbents, I understand, and have passed this one time before, but I'd like to move that for a -
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Giese move to exempt screening of those unopposed.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     Seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Seconded by Representative Inabinett. We've always done this in the past. All in favor say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it. Those of you who are unopposed you may be excused, you may sit through the hearing. We certainly appreciate your attendance.

First on our agenda is Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School. Are these first three unopposed, Kay?
MS. BRADLEY:     All of them.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All unopposed. Well, then, we go next to the Medical University of South Carolina, that was unopposed. Coastal Carolina. Mr. Parker is unopposed. We will hear first from Leo Richardson. If you would please come to the speaker there. State your name, your full name, and your address please.
MR. RICHARDSON:     Leo Richardson, 241 King Charles Road, Columbia.
MR. RICHARDSON - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Mr. Richardson, do you have any health related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of -
A.     No, I don't.
Q.     - that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
A.     None whatsoever.
Q.     Considering your present occupation and other activity, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     Absolutely.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the board?
A.     None whatsoever.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause a violation of the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     None whatsoever.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any questions of the gentleman? Mr. - Representative Inabinett.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q.     Mr. Chairman, I have a question that I might ask most of the candidates. In light of proposed decreases in funding for higher education, what do you feel that you can bring to a college or university board as it relates to budget cuts? What do you think you might be able to do to ease some of the apparent burdens that some colleges and universities feel that they're going to experience as it relates to proposed decreases in funding?
A.     I guess there are a couple things that I would recommend. Number one is that you have the alumni, and I happen to be president of the Morris College National Alumni Association. Also while I was at the University at Buffalo when I organized seven alumni chapters in the state of New York and Washington, D.C. So I have a tremendous - I feel some experience in organizing alumni.

The other entity I would recommend is that to see we could get some corporate sponsors and see if we can get some philanthropist to assist in our funding. So, I think are any number of things that the board of trustees could do, and I could bring that to the board.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions of Mr. Richardson? Senator Wilson.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to Mr. Richardson that I'm late. But an issue that I am very concerned about is a four-year graduation rate, and, unfortunately, Coastal Carolina has one of the lowest in the whole state. And for the interest of the students, for the interest of their parents and for the interest of the taxpayers, I'm very interested in trying to get students through preferably within four years, but certainly as quickly as possible. What would you do to promote that concept?
A.     What I would recommend to the - to the institution is to develop a mechanism for students when they come in to see if they can't succeed. Those individuals - when I say those individuals, I mean students who are marginal students, then you will - when they come, you will know their SAT scores, ACT scores and you will know their - their academic record. So, if they come in, then you have some academic standards to make sure that these students succeed.

They used to be called remedial courses. They're now called develop - developmental courses. My experience have been that at the three institutions I had the opportunity to work was to look at the students when they came in the first semester, preferably before they came in, and say, looky here, so - and advise them that you're a little bit behind academically, AC - or compared to your scores or what have you, and here's what it's going to take to bring you up to standards in order for you to graduate.

If they know this up front, I have yet to find a student who would not go through that process. So it's important to make sure that they understand what it takes to get out of college. If the institution would institute such a program, I think it would be successful.

I had the opportunity to introduce a retention program at the University of Buffalo, and in that, the whole faculty was involved in retaining students because we had sort of a revolving door type thing. And so we were able to - we were able to implement that retention program which helped the university tremendously. So that's what I would recommend.
Q.     And one other question, and that would be related to what you were indicating to advisors advising students to a course load to take necessary to graduate in the major that they have selected, wouldn't that be very helpful that the advisors be thoroughly familiar with what needs to be done and as a guiding principal spend time with the students to assist them in their college career?
A.     Absolutely. What - what the retention program did for us, we got the whole faculty involved and assuming - you know, I've been in athletics a long time. I have that kind of experience.

When you bring students in then you want to make sure that they graduate. If they don't have the potential to graduate, then there's no use to bring them in. But what you would do is you will have counselors and most important is students sometimes don't know what they need.
Q.     I see.
A.     And it's important for them to be told when they come in, say, "Looky here, now here's what it needs" - when you - when you apply and if you are accepted, these are the conditions. So the family knows what - it may take a student an extra semester or summer to graduate, but I think if the retention program is put in place like it should be, then I think the student has an opportunity to - to graduate.

Now, the graduation record for students throughout the country is 4.7 years. And so if you can get them out in that length of time, I think you'd be with the national average. And for athletes it's about 4.9 years. So - but that's - that's what you want to look at in terms of time. See, some students are able to graduate in three, three and a half, four, sometimes take a little bit longer.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Giese.
SENATOR GIESE:     Mr. Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q.     It bothers me that you've engineered into your concept of handling youngsters who really aren't prepared to go to college the fact that we should be offering, you used the word developmental courses at the college level that they should have passed at the high school level.

What that means is we furnish their high school education at state expense and now at the college level, we're going to fund them again to do high school work which I find offensive. And then you talk in terms of getting out there in five years and so on for graduation. The State has to support people that go to Coastal Carolina, a four-year school, in excess of $4,000 year. Every year they stay in school, the taxpayers pay another increment toward that education.

I would hope that if you serve on the Board of Trustees that you would be a strong advocate of insisting that if people have to take makeup courses, high school level courses, they don't do it at the expense of the taxpayers again.

I know - I believe at the university now, we - and I believe at Clemson, they don't spend any state money on developmental courses. If they don't deserve to get in school, don't take them. Let them go to a two-year school or where it's less expensive to get those makeup courses that you're talking about. But I think it's an exciting school developing very rapidly and they can be able to play a real part of - whoever is elected, a real part in its development.
A.     Well, thank you very much, but the - you know, the reality is that's the way it is in this state and most states across the country. We have a problem in higher education particularly with our students coming out of high school. They're poorly prepared. Most them are.

So - and if you look at all of the curricula or all the bulletins that you have coming out, they have these courses. And I agree with you, it's very difficult to bring in all the students who are ready to do the academic work that's required.

Now, some colleges have a waiting list. The University of Buffalo unfortunately had a waiting list. There are some who got in who need some courses anyway because ten fifty, 1100 SAT score was required. But even at that, they had some students that needed some help.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Representative Littlejohn.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN:
Q.     Mr. Richardson, you are willing to raise your standards then for students coming in?
A.     Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. I think that, you know, the students will reach whatever standards you set. If you set the standard high, they'll find a way to reach it. They - you know, whatever is required, they will meet that standard. So it's up to the university to set that standard.
Q.     But you are willing to raise -
A.     Absolutely.
Q.     - your standards?
A.     Absolutely. Absolutely.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Before you step down, Mr. Richardson, let me swear you in please. Will you raise your right hand?
LEO RICHARDSON, having been duly sworn, testified as indicated above.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Next we have Mr. Oran P. Smith. State your full name please, Mr. Smith.
MR. SMITH:     I'm Oran Perry Smith.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Would you raise your right hand.
ORAN P. SMITH, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
MR. SMITH - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Mr. Smith, do you have any health related problems that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the board?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     No, I do not.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any questions of the gentleman?
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Wilson.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     You heard my concern expressed concerning a four-year graduation rate to Mr. Richardson, and I'd like to know what your view is on how we can address this problem that I think we have in South Carolina.
A.     Well, Senator, I think that's an appropriate question. Having served on the board for two years, I'm aware of the problem that we do have. Not to make excuses for the Coastal Carolina student, but much of the problem -
Q.     I mean it generically, not just the Coastal Carolina, although I think Coastal Carolina may have the lowest graduation rate.
A.     I think over four years it is - if not the lowest, next to lowest. I think a lot of that has to do with a very simple fact that we have very little housing on campus. We have about 4500 students. We have only about 400 beds in the dormitory. So most of our students are living in Conway or Myrtle Beach.

To be perfectly honest, maybe some of them are spending a little too much time in Myrtle Beach. That keeps them away from the focus on their studies that they need to have at a university. So our commuter, the commuter nature of the campus is harmful, and I think compared with other commuter campuses, it's about the same.

Our president that we've hired in the last two years, Doctor Ron Ingle has done a study of the problems at Coastal that have to do with not only the graduation rate, but of keeping students. We lose a number of students from one year to the other, and he has instituted a new office within the administration, a vice president for enrollment management. And that individual's full time job is to see that not only do we have a better graduation rate, but that we retain students from year to year better.

They found that, for instance, athletes who come in, and they have the requirements for the NCAA that they have - that they graduate or they have these high standards because of their athletes and receiving funding, the university has found that spending time with those students, a lot of attention with those students, has caused them to have among the highest graduation rates and some of the best grades on the campus and we're very proud of that.

So what they're going to attempt to do with this new enrollment management position is to - to transfer some of those things they've learned from working with athletes to the - to the students in general. And this is somewhat of a transition, but the funding issue is not so distant from this, the issues of state funding remaining somewhat level for Coastal. The more students that we retain, the fewer that have to be recruited to make up the difference, the fewer we have to recruit, the more money there is to meet our budget. So it's not only a problem of academics. It's a funding issue as well. So I'm confident that within the next year we should see a marked improvement in the graduation rates.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q.     Mr. Smith, as I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, the graduation rate at Coastal is 23 percent. Who is less than that in the state that's a state supported institution?
A.     That sounds correct, and I don't know that anyone is. Perhaps if we were to look at some technical schools which are considered a part of our college structure, they might be lower.
Q.     As a four-year institution, I believe -
A.     As a four-year institution that sounds about right, over four years. Four calendar - or four academic years.
Q.     It is of considerable concern to certainly the people who fund the institution and now that you've broken away from the university, perhaps you'll be able to improve on that.
A.     Right. Thank you, sir. Well, I think another part of it is some students these days have three choices on how they're going to be able to pay for their college education, maybe mom and dad, state loans and grants, and more often those are loans these days. I know that's how I financed my college education. And then the other is working. And a lot of students at Coastal - because there's such a large business district in the area, a lot of students at Coastal work almost full time in order to fund their college education, and that has harmed graduation rates. So many students are working their way through these days.

But without a doubt, that is a problem the university has - the Board of Trustees has addressed on a number of occasions in the last year, and the administration of the university is on top of the issue and I think within the next year, we should see a marked improvement in that because of the attention being put upon it by the administration.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Inabinett.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q.     Mr. Smith, you addressed the - briefly the funding issue. As an individual board member since colleges and universities depend upon - I mean their general funding is an important issue of part of their operations. As an individual, how would you address the present proposed budget cuts in higher education as it relates to the institution that you're hopeful to become a member of the board?
A.     Well, I think we have definitely shifted in the last few years from being a state supported institution or a state institution to a state assisted institution, because our budget is almost 50/50 state monies and monies that are raised from tuition. And it's almost to the point of, in Coastal's case, for every dollar we lose in state funding it needs to be passed along to the students for an increase in tuition.

I think that my predecessor here at the podium touched on a couple of good ideas. One is we need to work more with the business sector in the, not only the Waccamaw region of our state, but the entire state to promote more private giving. I know that Max Lennon (ph) at Clemson had a massive capital campaign where they raised a hundred million dollars of private money and the reports I've seen from our Development office do not show us in that ballpark even. We need to do a lot more with private giving and alumni giving, and I think also corporate giving.

So that - that would be one answer that I would have if we're just faced with no further increases in state funding. If it continues to remain level, we will definitely have to go to the business sector, ask them to take a little pride in their community and in their community college and to kick in some funds to help us with our programs because many of the programs at Coastal Carolina benefit the entire community. Will Wright Auditorium hosts a number of events for the community and the community uses the campus for a number of events, swimming pool and a number - numerous facilities, that's another option. Some of the facilities that are used by the community, perhaps a fee could be charged or fees could be increased, for instance, for the use of the swimming pool, for the use of the auditorium, some of these ways. Some user fees could be enacted or raised.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Littlejohn.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN:
Q.     Mr. Smith, the university system has a working agreement with technical colleges to do remediation for certain students coming in. Do ya'll have a working agreement with tech schools in your area to remediate problem students, because it is cheaper to do it that way?
A.     As I understand it, and if you've ever been to our campus, Horry-Georgetown Tech is the same road that leads to Coastal Carolina. You make a right, you're on the Coastal campus. A left, and you're on the Horry-Georgetown Technical College campus. And our relationship with them is very close, and as I understand it, a number of the courses - or a number of students transfer in from Horry-Georgetown where they have taken these courses, remedial courses, to prepare them for full college work. And, again, as I understand it, Coastal Carolina does not teach very many remedial courses. I just don't think the university can afford to do it and hasn't been doing it.

One thing I might add, Coastal Carolina until - and again, I'm not an administrator, so some of the facts and figures, I'm not absolutely certain of. But I can tell you that Coastal Carolina was an open admissions institution until only a few years ago. I think 1988, in 1989-1990 calendar - or school year, academic year, the college actually set in some admission standards, and since then it's not just an open door, you have to meet admissions standards to come to Coastal Carolina and we've been able to do that in the last five years and still be able to - to meet our budget which I'm very proud to say that's been done.

Some colleges in the state I think may have raised their standards beyond what they can to be able to keep the school in the black, but we have I think walked a middle line of having high admission standards without pricing ourselves out of the market.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions? Yes, ma'am. Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q.     Mr. Smith, in light of the ever present conversations on affirmative action, as a trustee member, what would you do or have been doing to look at the affirmative action goals? All of our universities have such goals. Are you aware of them at Coastal, and are they good and what will you do about them?
A.     Well, we have a strong affirmative action program at Coastal. In fact, the director of Personnel, her full title is the director of Personnel and Affirmative Action. That's a part of her title. That's what she has to see on her door every day and on her business card and concentrate on is not only personnel and employment, but affirmative action.

And our - our plan that we have in place seems to be working quite well, and she has focused her efforts on that and spent a lot of time making sure that our institution is reflective of the state and the nation and that we are doing our part to help all of our people in the state to achieve some academic exposure and to be able to graduate and enjoy the benefits of a college education.

But I think that we're doing - we're doing well with that. In fact, I would argue - and again I'm not an administrator, but I would argue that no school in the state is more sensitive to affirmative action goals and plans than Coastal. So it's a constant issue and it's a constant discussion among the board and the administration and something that we're very serious about.
Q.     In your present administration, what are the ratios, just at the administrative level?
A.     Senator, I don't think I've ever actually had those figures presented to me. Perhaps there - I'm sure they're in our annual report, and I could - I could get back to you on that. But I don't think I know the exact percentages or the exact numbers to be able to calculate a percentage in.
Q.     In the first four, in your president, your vice president or presidents, what do you have right now in terms of minorities and women?
A.     We really only have three senior level officers of the university. Our - our president is a white male. Our vice president for academic affairs or our provost is a white male. Our vice president for financial affairs is a white female. I'm trying to think through our deans now. We have a -
Q.     That's okay.
A.     We have a white female dean. Her job is open now. It seems that we are in the process of hiring a replacement for her. On the administrative level, the very top positions, I would say it is somewhat white male dominated and white female.
Q.     All right. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Smith.
A.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Next -
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes, Senator.
SENATOR WILSON:     Previously, the persons who were in uncontested races were acknowledged and then released and we now have Mr. Tony Grant, a long time friend of mine who is present here from the Second Congressional District. He currently holds the seat on the Board of South Carolina State University, and he, I'm delighted to see, is unopposed, and I just want to recognize him and move that he be acknowledged and released.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you, Senator.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     Seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN:     We appreciate your - the work you're doing.
MR. GRANT:     Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes, sir.
SENATOR WILSON:     And there may be other persons here. Are there any other persons in uncontested races?
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you. Next we have Third District, Payne Barnette. Mr. Barnette, would you raise our right hand please.
PAYNE BARNETTE, JR., having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
MR. BARNETTE - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Mr. Barnette, do you have any health related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in your full capacity?
A.     No, sir, I don't.
Q.     Considering your present occupation or other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the board?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any questions for Mr. Barnette?
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     I have just a -
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Inabinett.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q.     The same question as it relates to proposed decreased funding for colleges and universities, how would you handle that or what would you offer to help the university or the college?

And I have one other question that I'd like to ask you, sort of hot issue, as it relates to concealed weapons. There is a possibility if the bill that's now - has been introduced, if passed, may give students the right to bear arms on campus or to carry a concealed weapons. Would you address that issue and the issue of funding?
A.     Yes, sir. The - first the weapon issue, at Coastal, we haven't discussed that just - but we just started preliminary talks about that because we didn't think it was an issue. I don't think anybody did until just recently.

Of course, throughout the country there's always been the threat of weapons on - on school grounds and universities, and we have talked about that in the past. The only thing that I can think of is - and it's also been mentioned before, is that - is that we have a - talked about having metal detectors in certain buildings, and, of course, another expense, and that sort of thing. I'm afraid that's all I can offer there.
Q.     But if the law passes and students are allowed to bear arms on campus or to carry concealed weapons, as an individual board member, what do you feel or what is your feelings as it relates to that?
A.     Of course, that - having weapons on a college campus - I went to college like most of you, and I don't think that I myself or - or my constituents at the time were responsible enough to have weapons in their possession on a college campus. I definitely think that that would - would not be a thing that we'd want.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other -
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Glover.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     I'm very concerned about a four-year graduation rate, how would you face the challenge of promoting a four-year graduation rate?
A.     What I would do, and have said before, is that the - to promote this, the first thing we do is start at the beginning of the four year - of the four-year education and we look at - we look at majors and we work with the students on a periodic basis. We start with them in the first semester and we work with them on what their major is.

Any of those that - and has to go the periodic meetings, predetermined meetings, those that don't make their major or don't make their mind up, then, you know, of course, academically you're also looking at that, you have these reviews early in their education.

This particular university is also real close to a tech school. We also are working with that school with those individuals who are planning to take majors in this university. Did I answer your question?
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other question for this gentleman? Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q.     Mr. Barnette, how important are the affirmative action goals at Coastal to you, personally, I mean, and what do they mean?
A.     To me, personally, I think that everybody needs to have an equal opportunity. In the business that I'm in that is what we look at. That's - that's something that I feel very strongly about. The opportunities for me have been great and I think that - I do see this from time to time, there are those that aren't as fortunate as I have been. I want to make sure that everybody gets the opportunities equally.

At Coastal, we have discussed that on several occasions. It's something that we need to discuss often quite frankly. Personally, again, I think that - I think it is very important to me, and I think that I'm knowledgeable in the subject and have practiced it in the past.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you, sir. Next we have Carey Green. Mr. Green, will you raise your right hand.
CAREY J. GREEN, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
MR. GREEN - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Mr. Green, do you have any health related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
A.     None whatsoever.
Q.     Considering your present occupation or other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     Yes.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the board?
A.     None.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any questions? Senator Wilson.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     How would you face the challenge of the four-year graduation rate?
A.     Concerning that, I think you've got to look at it realistically and being a graduate from Coastal, I see that maybe the lack of academic standards to be admitted in the school is one of the problems that - that you might resolve by just raising the standard of entry into the university. That's one.

Number two would be realistically you need to look at community. I think the community being a lot of commuting students and the community's commerce, industry, the tourism is a definite factor in this. And I think if the graduation rate is - is the lowest of any four-year institution in the state, you've got to realistically look at it and see that most of these students may be working jobs, and it's prolonging their education there. They're co-oping, so to speak.

I'm not sure that you can realistically solve that problem there. Commuting, people that is - that are extending their education from - from a relatively four-year program into a five or six. Specifically, you know, that - that is a problem that can maybe only be resolved by raising the academic standards.

And also as a coordinator, former coordinator of academic advising, I think that if you can capture these people or these students the first year, get them to declare a major as soon as possible, and then get advisors to help them stay focused in a specific area - as coming from Clemson University, we - we capture student athletes or other students and - and get them in a curriculum as soon as possible. And I know they may change majors, but try to cut out the fat as far as taking classes that they just want to take outside their curriculum.

That's a - that's a tough question to answer, but specifically again maybe raising the academic standards to get in school, number one. Number two would be academic advising as soon as possible.
Q.     I'm delighted to hear that you've got the experience of working with academic advisors. Do you feel like they're properly trained to and motivated to work with the students or is this something extracurricular that to someone is a burden?
A.     Okay, from - from the past, my experience has been it's a burden for - for a professor, instructor, a teacher there at the university. That's in addition to what their normal work load. They would have to take a specific number of students in their - hopefully, just in their discipline and try to coach them so to speak in there and keep them focused in that particular area. That's one thing.

At Clemson, we do have specific working with student athletes, we have the funding there from - from our boosters or gift type, but we've got money that we can focus and hire just advisors for that specific area. And, you know, that's just an advantage we have there.

Back to your question, there would be additional burden to the professor, instructors.
Q.     I guess just a comment. I really would hope they wouldn't perceive it as a burden because it's so important to the young people in our colleges and universities.
A.     I agree with you.
Q.     I would hope somehow they could be inspired that even though they're given these names that would not be a perfunctory meeting of "nice to see you" and let's get on to the next person.
A.     I agree with you. It - you know, they may look at it as a burden. I hope it wouldn't be. I hope there would be a more interpersonal relationship there that they would develop with that student.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions of the gentleman? Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q.     Mr. Green, why are you interested in serving on Coastal's board? And while answering that, I notice that you are an assistant coach. In relationship to the Senator's question to you, what has been your prior graduation rate of your athletes?
A.     Okay.
Q.     Those two questions.
A.     Okay, two questions. The reason I'm interested is that I see some of - some parallels through my life and in Coastal. I went to a junior college. Coastal used to be a junior college. I've seen it go from a junior college to a college and then break away to a university.

Going from a junior college to Coastal, that's my school, and then getting my master's degree at a major university, in my own career, teaching and coaching at a high school level, and then moving to a junior college and then having this opportunity at Clemson University, I see some parallels.

I see Coastal growing and the future looking great and I want to jump on board. I want to maybe have some insight from my own experiences to try to help Coastal in their direction and their future.

Now, the other part of your question, our graduation rate for women basketball players at Clemson is about four and a half years. It is greater than - I mean it's better than the average student at Clemson, and I think it's because of academic advising. We're keeping an eye on them, and they're not allowed to take classes outside
- well, they're - a few outside their curriculum, but not a wasted - not a - the fat is cut away in their academic curriculum.
Q.     And final question, the affirmative action goals of your - of the university, how important are they to you and what would you do in that area?
A.     Okay. I personally believe in equal opportunity and just be aware and sensitive to that. I think I am now. I work with one other male specifically in our department there and six females.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. - Representative Inabinett.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q.     Mr. Green, I have the same question - questions that I had for the previous other candidates with respect to funding for colleges and universities as it relates to proposed cuts and students carrying concealed weapons on campuses. How as a board member would you be able to address those concerns?
A.     That's a tough question. I think there's only three areas that I specifically think we will - we should explore. One would be raising fees for the students. Number two would be the corporate world, touch that, get in that. Clemson University is the greatest example of that. And number three would be through participation of alumni. Clemson University is again a good example of alumni being involved in the education and funding of the school.

Those would be the three areas as a board member that I think we ought to explore. Again, fees and alumni and the corporate world from - because I really see that if you touch the corporate world, that's a big one, that you get a co-op program or some funding from them, then you're going to send your best students back to them as an employee.
Q.     What about the issue of concealed weapons on campus?
A.     Okay. I pray that that don't get passed. If it does, it's sad. That would just put you at the mercy of - of people that may not be mature enough to understand or to carry concealed weapon.

I don't know as a board member that we can address that issue if it's passed and then set up any type of regulations other than - and I'm not even sure that having metal detectors would be a cure from - from that. But I think maybe - definitely in the athletic realm, I know from experience metal detectors have - have been an item there that - that can - could stop concealed weapons coming into the athletic arena.
Q.     If it becomes the law, then metal detectors really would have no use, but for some reason I seem to feel that there should be some sort of control. A student driving a car at school, to school or a bicycle, there's designated parking areas. There's some do's and don'ts, and I guess that's the gist of my question. I'm trying to find out how as a board member an issue or concern of this magnitude at least to me would be addressed by college and university board members?
A.     If we could set up regulation, I'm all in favor of that. And, again, I hope and pray that that don't happen. But if it was, I would definitely be in favor of setting up some regulations and restrictions according to concealed weapons.
Q.     Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I might state at this point, of course, that the federal and state law both prohibit - in fact, it's a felony for anyone under 21 to have possession of a firearm. Senator Giese.
SENATOR GIESE:     I don't think you need to worry about the legislation that it's in right now in the context of this conversation because you first have to prove that you have a need, and I can't - to carry this gun and I can't believe that somebody can prove that there's a need to carry a gun on campus.

The second thing that's been mentioned, anybody today that's over 21 years of age can carry a pistol in the glove compartment of his car in the state of South Carolina. That's legal right now. So I don't think you need to worry about how you're going to take care of that problem because I think it would be stopped simply because a student couldn't prove a need to carry a gun on campus to be considered for that.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions? Thank you, sir. With the completion of Carey Green, that completes our Coastal Carolina candidates. We now go to South Carolina State University. Moses Wilds. Would you raise your right hand, please, Mr. Wilds.
MOSES A. WILDS, SR., having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
MR. WILDS - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Do you have any health related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
A.     I do not.
Q.     Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     I can.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the board?
A.     I do not.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     No, I don't.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any questions? Senator Wilson.
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     Again, my interest, and it's not just at Coastal Carolina, it's every college and university in South Carolina, and that is, what's being done to address the challenge of a four-year graduation rate and what would you support?
A.     We have many programs at South Carolina State that we encourage our students. South Carolina State has always been - I'm a first year - I'm a first family graduate of State, first in our family. And State has always been like a family. Our students feel that they can just talk to the advisors and get the proper advice. And just like we have in athletics, the coach goes by to see if students are visiting the library and doing as they should.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I see you got a degree from State in 1943.
MR. WILDS:     Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Would that have been along about the time that Sammy Saxon attended? Did you know Sammy? He was from the town of Owings?
MR. WILDS:     Oh, I'm sure I did.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I believe -
MR. WILDS:     I was there when Marion Motley. You notice Marion Motley has been mentioned in the news quite recently. We were classmates.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I see. Mr. Inabinett.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q.     Mr. Wilds, I have the same question as relates to funding.
A.     Yes.
Q.     How would you address that concern?
A.     Well, we have a restructuring program. That's one - one method we have felt that would help us in reducing our administrative costs. And the other thing, we have fund-raising going on. We have many corporations now that they've agreed to be a partner with us. And I would encourage most of the public institutions to do the same thing. And we have encouraged our alumni to increase funding.

And there are many ways that we are going to promote to - to help in this because when I went - when I went on the board in '89, the State was funding us by 52 percent. And, of course, you know it's down to 30 something percent now. And we've - we've made it since then from '89 where we were funded 52 percent, we're down in the thirties, so we were - we've always had a way of making it in hard times.
Q.     Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you, sir.
A.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Next we have Mr. George Williams. Mr. Williams, will you raise your right hand please.
GEORGE WILLIAMS, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
MR. WILLIAMS - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Mr. Williams, do you have any health related problems the screening committee should be made aware of that would cause - prevent you from serving on the board in your full capacity?
A.     None.
Q.     Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     Yes.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the board?
A.     None.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     None.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions for the gentleman?
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     Mr. Williams, what would you do to promote a four-year graduation rate at South Carolina State University?
A.     I would do what I urged the students to do when I was director of minority students at Coastal Carolina University, to come to school for four years. We expect you to leave in four years. We expect you to pay attention, go to class, do your work and get out in four years. You came for a degree, we want you to leave with a degree in four years. That's how much time that we allocated for you, and that's how much time that you're supposed to put in.

Setting up standards and making sure that entrance standards are maintained, that students come in with the proper academic standards is important. Students that - remedial will have to pick up those skills someplace else before they come to college. When they come to college, they have to be college material and have to be ready to go to work and ready to get into the curriculum, follow the curriculum, go to classes on a timely basis and get out.
Q.     I certainly appreciate your enthusiastic response, too. It's right on point.
A.     Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Inabinett.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q.     I have the same question as it to relates to funding. Would you address that issue?
A.     Funding, Mr. Inabinett, I think that's - I was thinking that the State of South Carolina would find it is that education is one of the most important products that we can give to our youngsters, that funding would not be cut to the point that worthy boys and girls would not be able to be educated.

The future of our state depends on an educated local citizenry, and if we're going to grow, if we're going to absorb the industry, if we're going to get into the technology, it's important that we put the funds there to make sure that they go to school and that they bring in the kind of industry that we need.

Now, in order to help it, and it does need help, I would encourage alumni giving. It's important that whatever amount alumni can give be encouraged to give. I would think it is that coming from the administration or administrative office, that the administrator would make sure it is that the alumni office is fully informed, that they have addresses that they keep up with and make sure there are survivable organizations in the school.

Secondly, I serve on the board at Conway Hospital, the Foundation Board. I have seen what giving can - can mean to an institution. The hospital, they get in hundreds of dollars from people that doesn't have any place to put their money. A lot of them don't have families. A lot of them never have anything to do with them.

So we need to get into the business of saying to people it's important that you give to the future of this state and the future of this state is in education. So I would urge alumni giving. I would also urge foundation. And, firstly, I hope it is that the state of South Carolina does not feel that they need to cut education funding to the - to that lowest level.
Q.     Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions? Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q.     Mr. Williams, why do you want to serve on South Carolina State's board?
A.     I'm a student of South Carolina State. I attended South Carolina State. My wife, I met her there. We were classmates. We started working together, we retired together. I retired as a high school principal. She retired as a second grade teacher. My sister-in-law, I met her. She went to school there. My son went to school there. He's a funeral director.

As a high school principal, some of the things that I learned at South Carolina State, I was able to do in Horry County. I was the first black, Afro-American high school principal in Horry County. As a matter of fact, I built a school over there they call North Myrtle Beach High School, right off from Bay Street golf course.

And one of the programs I put in that school which really and truly helped is what I learned at South Carolina State. I put in an ROTC unit, a naval ROTC. The discipline - the academics went up and the discipline went down. Consequently as a result all over Horry County they have ROTC programs all over. It's basically what I had learned at South Carolina State, what I learned in summer camp.

And I think it is that I need to give back to South Carolina State University some of the things that they have taught me, some of the things they taught my wife and my sister and both of my sons. And I think it is that we need to get in step with the 21st century and say it is South Carolina State University can be a great university, but we need vision and we need hard work and we need to move ahead with it, and I would like to help State do that. And I would like for you to give me that opportunity.
Q.     Mr. Williams, also with affirmative action, what are your goals for South Carolina State University and how important are affirmative action goals for this institution?
A.     South Carolina State University, I really and truly do not know what they're doing relative to affirmative action, but I can say this, I was the first Afro-American teacher to teach at Coastal Carolina University. I started teaching there in 1970. I taught two classes on Tuesday and Thursday.

When I retired in '86 or in '87, I went to work at Coastal Carolina University under Ron Ingle and I was director of minority students. Those minority students that I was in charge of, we have what we call Afro-Am, and I would say to them how important it was to go to class, to do your work. Those that were deficient, and there were quite a number deficient, and the reason being, a lot of those kids they would come to school, stay two years and they would ship off to U.S.C. where their diplomas came from. So, they only wanted to stay two years at Coastal and then they - the program is changed now. They have a four-year institution.

But I do think it is South Carolina State University like Coastal, like Clemson, it should be a school for all people in the state of South Carolina. And since I've been sitting here listening to some of the people that attended Coastal and the ones that - on the board there, I do know a little bit about Coastal.

Coastal is populated, not a whole lot by the local people, but a lot by people from the coal country. They come from Buffalo, New York. They come from Pennsylvania. They come from other places. And they do enjoy the beach. Some of them might not find that education is not - so they might take a class in tennis and golf and swimming and so forth and so on. They might not think it is as important to get out of school in four years because, you know, they're kind of enjoying themselves.

Coastal is a good school, one of the highest rates of graduates that come from Coastal in business management. In E. Craigwell (ph) School of Business - well, I'm not supposed to be talking about that. I'm supposed to be talking South Carolina State University. But I had to mention that because I worked at Coastal until I retired in 1991.

But I would like to tell you what I know and what I would like to do and what I would like to see happen at South Carolina State University. I would like to take it and help it.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you, sir.
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, Senator.
RE-EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     I would like to thank you for citing the importance of JROTC programs. I think they are very helpful and something that needs to be known across the United States is that at South Carolina State University, they have one of the finest ROTC units in all of America, and it produces as many graduates as any institution in America. And it's just been a real unheralded, but very positive and successful ROTC source for officers for our American military.
A.     Well, it has really helped. The two years when we were there and the two years we spent as officers training others, it has really helped.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Inabinett.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     May I just add, South Carolina State through its ROTC program has produced several generals in the military. That's a plus.
MR. WILLIAMS:     We were in school together, so he knows.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you, sir.
A.     Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN:     The House is in session. What are our plans?
THE CHAIRMAN:     The Speaker said earlier it's all right to run on through. Next we have Mr. Arnold Collins. Yes, sir, Mr. Collins, would you raise your right hand please, sir.
ARNOLD COLLINS, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
MR. COLLINS - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Mr. Collins, do you have any health related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
A.     None.
Q.     Considering your present occupation or other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     Yes, I will.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the board?
A.     None.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust if elected to the board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     None.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any questions of Mr. Collins?
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes, sir.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     Mr. Collins, what would you propose to promote the four-year graduation rate at South Carolina State University?
A.     I have mixed feelings about that. I believe in four year program for certain disciplines - nursing teaching. But in particular in business and engineering, I prefer five year programs.

My son graduates from South Carolina State in three weeks, the five-year program. He's going to be a junior officer at NationsBank because he worked in the corporation arena for a year, so he'll have an edge I think on those students who work in the corporate program, especially in the - I mean the co-op program in the corporate arena. They'll have an edge in getting employment when they're out of school.

Not only that, it teaches them certain things. It gives them an inside look at a corporate life prior to graduating from school. So again I believe in minimizing taxpayers dollars. So in certain programs, I think they should be four years, but in some programs I prefer a five-year program, I want to be honest with you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions of the gentleman? Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Yes.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q.     Mr. Collins, why do you want to serve on South Carolina State's board?
A.     Senator, to be honest with you, I've been asked by certain - some interest - some individuals to apply for this position. I had the pleasure of serving on South Carolina State College board from 1983 to 1989. I was appointed by the former Governor Riley.

My professional background over the last 25 years has been banking, finance, business development and now I'm in Human Services Management. When I joined the board some years ago, the financial presentation - I'm saying this very compassionately. The financial presentation was oral, about five minutes long. Through my leadership we've got financial reporting to the board line item just by every program.

Then the chairman of the board, I.S. Leevy Johnson appointed me as chairman of the finance committee. I worked intimately with the auditing department and the fiscal department, and we wanted to see all the revenues on the table. We wanted to see all the programs expenses by line item, and I was very instrumental in that. In the year that I left the board, South Carolina State had an unqualified opinion from it's auditors. I want to go back to continue that, that legacy of watching the numbers.

Attending some of the games and meeting some of the old colleagues there, they were telling me we sure miss you there watching those numbers, so I've got the time and I want to go back and use my professional - my fiscal background to see what I can and especially in these times when federal funds and other funds are being diminished.
Q.     How important are affirmative action goals for you for South Carolina State?
A.     I think affirmative action is very, very important. I was instrumental in working along with the school back in the eighties to get a diverse group of people. I think it's very, very important. CBS has seen the wisdom of having - having racial diversity. I think it's a thing to do.

I think South Carolina State needs to do it and I'll be very, very actively involved in seeing that a diverse group of people attend, teach and show their leadership at the school, because when our kids leave there and go to the world of work, they will need - they will need the personality and the - and the - and experiences that a - that a multiracial makeup provides. So I think it's the way of the future and I think it's right and I like to do things that are right.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Collins. Next we have Seat 4. Our first candidate is Doctor James L. Bullard. Let me swear you in, Doctor Bullard. If you'd raise your right hand.
DOCTOR JAMES L. BULLARD, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
DOCTOR BULLARD - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Doctor Bullard, do you have any health related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Considering your present occupation or other activities, will you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     I would.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that present a conflict of interest because of service on the board?
A.     I do not.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any questions of the gentleman? Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Yes. Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q.     Doctor Bullard, in your service as a South Carolina State Board of Trustees, what do you think that you have offered, and then, of course, the second question would be your personal views on affirmative action and how important is that to the university?
A.     To begin, we definitely without a doubt recognize that we bring to the university or have brought to the university over the past two years that we have served an array of skills. I possess a doctorate from Florida State University in higher education wherein policy planning and analysis was my area of specialization.

So since being at South Carolina State along with being CEO of Today's Vender System (ph) which is a corporation that I am responsible for the day to day operation of, we certainly know the importance of budgetary kinds of restraints. On having assessed the current status of affairs at South Carolina State, we have been able to be instrumental in working with the president and other board members moving towards the establishment of foundations, and now we're beginning to look at the possibility of endowed chairs and also encouraging and trying to find various ways to get the alumni association to be more supportive of the university.

Further, we have spoken in a very kind way and set some goals to encourage the faculty to continue and compete more vigorously in the area of research and also to work towards the acquisition of grants. And as the chairperson of the Academic Affairs Committee on which I now serve, one of the things that I am working with the chairman of the board and the president even as I speak is to look at that issue of tenure.

You know, tenure throughout the history of the university has sort of been a sacred cow if you will. I'm not so sure that as we stand on the threshold of the 21st century, we can continue that endeavor of tenure as we once knew it. Tenure can be existent, but I do believe we've got to look at the number of tenure slots. And also as a visionary idea that I perceive, I do believe that the university may be able to run, be run with part time faculty with some of the frills that are currently existent being lessened. And that can bring about more affordability.

Also, I'm very concerned about student services and making sure that the necessary support services are there for students. We do know that running the university after having been there is an august task to say the least and policy development is - is something that we do not take lightly and having for - training in that area, I do believe I bring a lot of strength in that area to the university. That's in brief.

Now, as far - as far as affirmative action is concerned, I know that and I believe very strongly that we should be sensitive to all mankind irregardless of their ethnic enclave or their nationality, creed, sex, gender or whatever. And I know that that's the right thing.

At South Carolina State, I think without doubt the past two years that I've been there, we've seen inroads being made. There are faculty, students and not enough diversity, but there is a good bit of diversity at South Carolina State, but we certainly work each day, each hour to make sure that we begin to bridge the gap, so that we can live in a world more at peace and harmony.

The only way that man can coexist, and we can find a sense of peace and comfort within ourselves is knowing that we can be all that we can be and that is for every person regardless of his race, creed, color, or gender, sex.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Giese.
SENATOR GIESE:     Mr. Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q.     If I could follow up on that just a bit. You've been on the board two years?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     Doctor Bullard, could you be specific and tell me a couple of affirmative action programs you have in action now on the campus to attract white students to your campus?
A.     Yes, sir. Some may perceive it preferential towards whites students, but I don't. I think it's only right because South Carolina State University is a state university, and it's created for its citizenry. I happen to know firsthand that white students who are, or not just white, but any other minority student other than black that would be at South Carolina State, that they would be given special attention, so that we might be able to foster the demographics at the institution that would be healthy towards righting if you will, or causing for the university to be more diverse.

We know that we live in a society that is multicultural and just all of one thing, too much of anything is just not good. So we purport and we know that society at large is mixed. There are apples and oranges and carrots and grapefruits and whatever, and in order for our students to coexist and to exist and be all they can be and compete competitively, we know that as soon as they can get that exposure to coexist with others, it's in their best interest.
Q.     But can you specific - do you have any special scholarship programs restricted only -
A.     Oh, yes.
Q.     - to white students to -
A.     They are not restricted as such to just white students, but a white student may receive preferential treatment if all of the indices in a particular situation are the same.
SENATOR WILSON; Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Wilson.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     What would you do to promote a four-year graduation rate at South Carolina State University?
A.     Attrition is paramount and we find that it's not just at South Carolina State institution or university, but we find that attrition all over these United States is very important. I say this for the reason that we know that we are beginning to enter a period where there will be a decline in the number of students who are attending four-year institutions because during the period of the seventies, from seventies to '85, there was a decline for those of us that follow the demographics in population growth in the number of families who were having children. So we're about - we're on the threshold of seeing for the next, if you will, five or six years a decrease in the number of warm bodies that would be occupying higher educational institutions.

So, in the - as we begin to deal with attrition and we look at the number of students that are available, we want to attract those that are most capable and able. And how we maintain doing that is by providing the support services, the counseling services, to attract them and once they're there to try and meet their needs. Not necessarily by putting them out.     If you look at South Carolina State University, the one thing that is very, very positive about it is that the graduation rate has been fairly high. And that is because of support services that are in place. And we should continue that to make sure that the attrition rate remains the way it should. I don't know if I answered your question.
Q.     You - excellent response. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you, Doctor. Next, we have Alphonso Allen Mr. Allen, raise your hand, please.
ALPHONSO ALLEN, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
MR. ALLEN - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Mr. Allen, do you have any health related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
A.     None whatsoever.
Q.     Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     Yes, sir, I will.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of service on the board?
A.     None whatsoever.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     I do not.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any questions of the gentleman?
SENATOR GIESE:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q.     I notice you're a member of AFORD (ph) what role did you play to become a member of AFORD?
A.     I was - when I was in high school, I was in coaching - in the coaching fraternity, and I was also the president of the Greenville - Association of Greenville County Schools back in the late sixties.
Q.     Thank you.
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes, sir. Senator Wilson.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     Mr. Allen, what would you do to promote the four-year graduation rate at South Carolina State University?
A.     I did have the advantage of making some notes while I was out there.
Q.     Very good.
A.     There is my - this is my candid answer. I think that we should take a hard - hard look at the long term solutions to this problem, elevate entrance standards and continuously evaluate those students who remain. That's the way I see it.
Q.     And would you promote counselors and advisors to meet with the students and keep them fully informed?
A.     I would have - I would have no problem. I would not limit the situation to any extent. I've heard people say whether professors or teachers would be burdened, I think the majority of them would not be burdened. I think the majority of the people who - at other schools as well as my alma mater take on - take with pride an extra mission to help students become mature and grow and develop.

They understand, I understand, you understand that when they come, they are not the persons you want them to be. They come with the rough edges and we try to hone them into becoming productive adults.
Q.     Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions?
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q.     The same question as it relates to funding -
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Inabinett.
Q.     - in light of proposed decreases?
A.     I think I understand your question. I have to take the outsider's view, but I would explore all the - and come up with some creative solutions to this pressing problem, individual funding, corporate funding. The list is - the list is unknown. We haven't been very successful because we have not explored these avenues on a continuous basis over the years, so I would be a part of that group of people who would want to explore the avenues to see how far we can go because how far we can go to complement the state dollars.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions? Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q.     Mr. Allen, why do you want to serve on South Carolina State's board, and how important are the affirmative action goals for the university to you?
A.     May I answer the affirmative action first? I should hope that all of our institutions would become standard bearers among - all of our institutions of higher learning will become standard bearers and get this thing behind us once and for all. I'm particularly interested that South Carolina State would be the foremost standard bearer in doing this with enough style and enough class that others would want to copy how we do it.

First, I'm a loyal alumni, the second - second part of your question. Since graduating from State, I've maintained an active association with the school through the years. I'm a dues paying, working member of the National Alumni Association and I've attended all of the national conventions and currently serve as a founding member of the Palmetto Classic Committee and the standing committee of the class of 1963 - 53, which has a record of giving more money to the educational endowment than any class in South Carolina State's history.

My local, regional and national supporters understand and accept my condition to seek the seat as a worthy candidate whose agenda is to seek the optimum for higher education in South Carolina in general and South Carolina State University in particular.
Q.     Thank you.
MR. ALLEN:     Mr. Inabinett, may I address your prior question about the guns?
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     Thank you.
MR. ALLEN:     That is a - that is a situation I hope does not come to pass. I cannot visualize our society as a place where - wherever people went everybody was armed. I'm just not comfortable with that, and I would hope the wisdom of the legislature, of the state legislature would prevail upon all of us to such a degree that we - we would get a wave of - just don't allow it happen. I think all of us would be quite uncomfortable if that happened on any campus. I for one would be.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you, sir. Next we go to Seat 6, Edwin Givens. Mr. Givens, raise your left hand, please. Might the record show that his right arm is apparently broken and in a sling.
EDWIN GIVENS, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
MR. GIVENS - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Mr. Givens, do you have any health related problems that the screening committee should be made aware that would prevent you from serving on the board in your full capacity?
A.     No, I don't.
Q.     Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     Yes, I would.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the board?
A.     No, I don't.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     No, I don't.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions of the gentleman?
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Wilson.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     Mr. Givens, what would be your suggestions to promote a four-year graduation rate at South Carolina State University?
A.     First of all, I'm a 1985 graduate of South Carolina State and a graduate of the University of South Carolina School of Law. And while I was at the University of South Carolina School of Law, I was very instrumental in the Dean's advisory board in setting up tutorial programs for students who were coming in and having problems in various classes. I feel we can employ students who have excelled in various areas of academics - math and English - and use them in a work study capacity to help students who are struggling in various areas and promote this method to enable them to graduate in a more expeditious manner.

Now, on another note, South Carolina State's mission is to create successful citizens in their chosen careers and through their chosen aspirations and to contribute to the dynamics of society and the community is a very important mission for South Carolina State, and I feel that this is more important than a student actually graduating in four years. Creating a productive citizen who can come out and contribute to society instead of take away from society, I think is very important.

But I - on the other hand, graduating in four years and as fast as possible is a mission that I would definitely take on.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q.     Mr. Givens, you're a four-year graduate according to your vita here?
A.     Yes.
Q.     And then you finished the law school obviously in three years. So, tell me how much did you have to work? Did you work your way through school, and if you did work your way through school, how many hours a week did you, or were you fortunate enough to be able just go to school?
A.     Well, as an undergrad at South Carolina State, I was fortunate to go through school. When I went to school law, my parents basically told me I had to help. I do this mostly on my own. So, I worked through law school while attending full time.
Q.     Would you say this is an accurate statement to say that a lot of students go off to school having to work to get their way through school and work themselves out of school by spending too much time working?
A.     That is the case in some instances. The University of South Carolina School of Law, they don't allow students to work their first year of law school. They want you to get indoctrined (sic) into the curriculum and understand what you are facing, and then your second and third year, you're allowed to work.

So I would not be in favor of a first year freshman being made to work. I think they need to get really familiar with the new academic setting and the different environment that they're in.
Q.     I think without question the fact that some youngsters spend too much time working. I spent 40 years in higher education and the single greatest reason why I found children flunk or students flunking out was that they had spent too much time working and not enough time on their academics. So I guess that's a delicate balance that they have to realize that they're there to get an education and work themselves out of school by some outside job is really economy.
A.     Right.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Inabinett.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q.     Yes. I'm really enthused over the idea of a tutorial work study program. I had not heard that addressed. How would you address funding for the institution?
A.     Well, funding is an area that we have to handle with - with precision. I understand 1993-94 fiscal budget that was that - was handed down from the General Assembly was about $18,640,000 and in 1994-95 that was decreased about $324,000. And this year, I understand that there's probably going to be about a two and a half percent decrease also.

So, as far as funding, I would recommend that we tap more sources as far as private contributions, businesses, endowments and grants. South Carolina State has already taken part in those avenues that are available to them, but I believe that we can actually expand in these areas and bring more funding into the school.
Q.     Thank you.
SENATOR GIESE:     Mr. Chairman, one more.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Giese.
RE-EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q.     Work study is funded 80 percent by the federal government, 20 percent locally.
A.     Right.
Q.     So that's a good investment. I really like your idea about peer counseling also, but 80 percent federal funding.
A.     Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Yes.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q.     Mr. Givens, why do you want to serve on South Carolina State's board, and secondly, how important are the affirmative action goals for the university to you?
A.     Well, I would like to serve on South Carolina State's board, first of all, I'm a 1985 graduate of the school, and I'm very invigorated with the programs that are going on at South Carolina State now. I'm very enthused about South Carolina State. I have a deep commitment to South Carolina State.

I feel that South Carolina State has opened doors to me and given me the opportunity to be successful in life and to become a layer, and I would just like to give back some to South Carolina State what was given to me. I would like to share back some of the experiences that I've had and some of the goals I've been able to achieve by serving on the Board of Trustees. I can't think of any other position that I hold that I would feel more comfortable with and more enthused with as far as South Carolina State than to contribute back to the university's Board of Trustees.

As far as affirmative action at South Carolina State, South Carolina State was started back 1896 I believe as a land grant institution primarily to serve African-American citizens of South Carolina, when it was known as South Carolina Agriculture and Mechanical College at that point. Since then South Carolina State has grown to be multicultural. They've grown to be somewhat diverse. The education programs are set up, I understand some doctoral programs were taken from the University of South Carolina to attract more - more people of other races and cultures to South Carolina State College. So I am in strong support of affirmative action and creating a multicultural, multiracial environment in South Carolina State College.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you, sir. Next we have Doctor Thomas Wilson. Doctor Wilson, raise your right hand, please.
DOCTOR THOMAS WILSON, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
DOCTOR WILSON - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Doctor Wilson, do you have any health related problems the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
A.     I do not.
Q.     Considering your present occupation or other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     I will be able to.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that present a conflict of interest because of service on the board?
A.     None, sir.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     I do not.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions?
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Wilson.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     Doctor Wilson, what would be your proposal as to promote a four-year graduation rate at South Carolina State University?
A.     Senator, the graduation rate of South Carolina State University is fair. What I would recommend, I recommend that the university screen its students. I recommend that they get quality accidents. Once you get quality students, students have a mission in life, we have a higher percentage of graduates. If I can give you one example of another institution, Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia.

Hampton has a slot with 3,000 freshmen. Hampton recruit 9,000 freshmen and they get the best 300 - or best 3,000 from that 9,000 and because of that, 93 percent of Hampton's students graduate. And I would recommend that we follow this same trend. The top students are out there and students who are concerned are out there. We must go out and get those students.
Q.     And you would also support the advisors being truly interested in the students and assisting the students who are there in terms of courses to be taken and advice on just generally how to adapt to college life?
A.     I think it should be a close relationship with the department deans and the students. I think department heads should meet with their department graduates or department majors, during the course of several times per year to find out where the students are and where you're going, are you having any problems, and come to the conclusion there and address these concerns.

Too often sometimes our department heads just let the student go through and time to graduate, you know, I need some more hours or I failed a course. I think we should stay in touch with our graduates.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     Yes. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Representative Inabinett.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q.     Doctor Wilson, can you tell us since you've been on the Board of Trustees for a year or two your involvement as it relates to funding for the institution and what you would do in the future as it relates to proposed cuts in higher education?
A.     I thank you, Mr. Inabinett. In regard to cuts, we may not have too much control over that. What I'm going to do, I'm going to compensate for those cuts. Now, here where the problem comes in, where are you going to get the funds from? I happen to be a professional fund raiser.

I raised funds for a college, a private college for 12 years, and the budget had to come from what I do. I have experience in that. I've done that. I've knocked on foundation doors. I've knocked on corporation doors. And those doors are still open, but I have no college to go there for since I retired.

I sat in Senator Thurmond's office with a proposal and received grants for 75 and 80 and a hundred thousand dollars because we have a mission, and this mission was sold. We have a good product. When you have a good product, you got to sell your good product to someone who is going to back that product and I - this is one of the recommendation, you know, I would suggest.

I also would like to be the first person to start a board members check writing contest. You see, if I'm going to sit on a board, you know, I'm going to put mine on the table first, and then I can say, "Members, let's join the force."
Q.     I guess my question was what have you done in the past for South Carolina State as it relates to fund raising. I didn't - maybe you answered that question and I didn't hear you.
A.     What I've done in the past, I may have one of my little brochures here. I was the executive secretary for South Carolina State National Alumni Association. First, we set up goals. Goal number one, we're going to endow a scholarship for Doctor M. - we presented him $50,000 to endow this scholarship here where we get a more top students.

The national alumni contributed $63,000 in 1986 to the college for more scholarships. Doctor Samuel Struman (ph) endowed a $6,000 scholarship for the college. All came through my efforts of fund raising. And what I would like to do is continue this.
Q.     Thank you.
A.     And I have a contact there.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Littlejohn.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN:
Q.     Doctor Wilson, you mentioned you'd like to go after the top students and maybe raise the standards. Do you realize that would eliminate 15, 20 percent of your students? Would you really be willing to do that?
A.     That would be a part of the program.
Q.     Sir?
A.     That would be part of the program. See, first you try to get the top. You get the top qualified students. Now, we know that there are other students who are coming out. If you have those students, then how are you going to deal with that? Then we work with those students, where you find them, we work with them through the department heads. We work with those students through tutoring programs or find out where their weakness are, and then we address those concerns.

All students may have a different reason why they drop out or fall back.
Q.     But if you go after the top students and raise the standard, you're just going to eliminate three, four, five hundred students. What are you - would you really be willing to do that and to put them into the vocational school, maybe where they need to go anyway? Would you really be willing to do that?
A.     This would be what we call an initiation progress - process. We start this process. In other words, we take the students from both areas, but we work toward getting our top caliber students. Not that we're going to turn all the other students down.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions?
SENATOR GLOVER:     Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Glover.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q.     Doctor Wilson, I think you've already addressed my first question which is why you want to serve on the board, so we'll go to the second one and tell me how important are the affirmative action goals of the university to you.
A.     Can I take the first - could you ask me the first question? I'd like to address that question.
Q.     All right. Go right ahead.
A.     I have three reasons why I want to be on the board. Number one, I'm from the Greater Pee Dee area of South Carolina. That's the roughest farm area in the United States. The Greater Pee Dee region is not recommended (sic). It's not on the board. We are not represented on the South Carolina State Board of Trustees. The past 50 years, I don't recall when a person from the Greater Pee Dee area has been on the South Carolina State Board of Trustees, and I think by running for this seat here we give the Pee Dee area representation. And I think all areas should be represented on a state Board of Trustees, and this is reason number one.

Reason number two, in my experience of fund raising, I'd like to rechallenge this fund raising idea back to the college, and being a philanthropist, I'd like to give some scholarships and open some new doors and some new funding program to the college.

And number three, one of my primary volunteer jobs is recruiting. I go all over the Pee Dee area high schools and I say, "Give me the list of your top 20 or 25 students." I send those name and addresses down to Miss Freed to the admissions office. Ninety percent of those students are being accepted, and I want to continue doing this.

Now, if I was on the board, I could work with board members and with the alumni to continue recruiting top students. And those are three reasons why I like to serve on the board.
Q.     Thank you.
A.     Now, as far as affirmative action being on South Carolina State College for about six years, I've only seen fairness. They practice fairness. Everybody has the same opportunity, the same chance, and I think we have a very good, diversified administration, faculty and staff and students there.

However, listening to the questions from one of the senators concerning how would you attract white students to come to the university, you may have to set up some kind of special program, offer more scholarships, let it be open to everybody, and I think if we further this trend, we will attract more students from all aspects to the university.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions? Thank you, sir.
A.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Let's see, next we go to the Citadel. Colonel Stephen D. Peper.
COLONEL STEPHEN D. PEPER, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
COLONEL PEPER - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Do you have any health related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Considering your present occupation or other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of service on the board?
A.     No, sir, I do not.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions for the Colonel?
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Wilson.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     The Citadel has the highest graduation rate of any college in South Carolina, but what would you do to improve it?
A.     We're doing quite well. We do need to improve it in some areas. We have talked about taking some of the courses in the engineering program presently and making them two semester courses instead of trying to load them up and putting more into labs on that point.

One of the reasons for our success I think, and it's really not fair in one aspect to compare because we do have a captive audience where a lot of the undergraduate programs do not, and our cadets are not allowed a work outside of the school. They can certainly do like I did and deliver papers and work in work study programs and things of that nature, but we are not - you can't get off campus to go to work at someone's insurance agency in the afternoon.
Q.     Does the Citadel sort of have a very good advisor program where they work with the students?
A.     Our advisor program is not a volunteer program and oftentimes it's difficult to attract faculty to come there for that reason. But we - we require our faculty members to be assigned a pool of students and they recommend them through the criteria and the curriculum on that. And we don't want mistakes on Monday morning the day after graduation and "hey, what happened?" We don't want surprises. So, yes, it's very active.

And not only do we have that for students, we have academic advisors who are then assigned to each company in the battalion, and so they are familiar with each company's academic officer. And, of course, we also have a required evening study period from 7:00 o'clock until 10:30 where you have to be accounted for somewhere. You can sign out and go to the library. You can sign out to go to one of the study halls. But you're only allowed to go out in town if you've received special privileges based upon academic performance in the previous semester.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions? Senator Giese.
SENATOR GIESE:     Mr. Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q.     Is there anything in your recent record that would indicate you've had any problems with the law?
A.     With the law? No, sir. Not at all.
Q.     Any kind of judgments or - I can't be more specific than that, but -
THE CHAIRMAN:     That'd be civil.
Q.     Civil. Any kind of - anything that has to do with the criminal code? I'm not a lawyer, so I can't - any arrests or appearances before a court?
A.     On the criminal side, sir?
Q.     With a criminal -
A.     Of course not, no, sir. Not at all. Now, if you'd like me to explain what you might be referring to.
Q.     Please.
A.     About two years ago, I was inaccurately named as part of an investigation by the State's Securities office. I was not involved in that at all, and it was made very clear, and I've got copies that exonerate me totally from that. But I was no where near involved.

What happened was I referred a client to an individual. I had nothing to do with any of the thing and what happened was the - this individual unbeknownst to me was under investigation by the Secretary of State's office, and I was offered a cease and desist in the securities transaction. I was not even active in the securities business. I had - was fully employed with the company that I own presently, had nothing to do with it.

By the time I hired my counsel to get the thing straightened out, it was two weeks later. It cost me a couple thousand dollars, and I was totally exonerated, and I can prove that if need be.
Q.     But that's the basis -
A.     That's the only thing.
Q.     Is that a civil or is that a criminal?
A.     I have no idea what it was. I guess it would be - it's not criminal I know. But -
THE CHAIRMAN:     That would have been criminal had he been found guilty.
A.     Had I been even named, but, you know, when they order - they issue a cease and desist telling you not to do something, well, if you're not doing it, then there's no reason to worry about not doing something you're not doing.
Q.     But a cease and desist - again, you lawyers help me - what does that mean?
A.     It means -
Q.     Cease and desist doing what?
A.     Well, when I met with Mr. Miles it was "stop it," and I said, "Well, I never did it." "I know, we'll get it straightened out," and they did.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I might say for the committee's information that the SLED background check shows no convictions there.
SENATOR GIESE:     No convictions.
THE CHAIRMAN:     He has no record, yes, sir. That's criminal.
A.     And I might reiterate, too, that what we're talking about, sir, was purely, purely administrative in nature and it - I mean, I did not even - it was - it took me about ten days to get the thing straightened out with the Secretary of State's office.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Further, the Charleston Clerk of Court records shows he has a judgment.
A.     That is correct, sir. I am arguing that judgment with a contractor who performed services on my home.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Lee Building Products for $14,000?
A.     That's exactly right, sir. That's exactly right.
Q.     Got a judgment against him?
A.     That's a judgement against him that the building services is trying to get me to pay. I did not even know that judgment existed until I did the search on this, and I have referred that back to my attorney and that will be taken care of.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Inabinett.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q.     Mr. Peper, since the Citadel is undergoing some proposed changes?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     As it relates to females integrating the corps, have you been involved or has the Board of Visitors been involved in some of the decisions as it relates to females integrating the corps? And if so, can you give us your feelings as it relates -
A.     Be happy to.
Q.     - to interrogation?
A.     I'll be happy to. We have a - as a board, we just felt like what we had to do on this particular instance - and by the way, I am named in the lawsuit. I had the privilege of being elected three years ago by your body, and then two weeks later, the lawsuit came out, so had the election been two weeks later, my name would not have been on there.

But nonetheless we have authorized our legal counsel to do whatever he felt we needed to do within the letter of the law. We have appealed it now to the Fourth Circuit. It's been given back to the District Court to come up with a parallel program. We will do whatever we are told to do and whatever the final decision is, is what we will uphold.
Q.     Could you relate more to first person than the board -
A.     My experience.
Q.     - as a whole?
A.     The board as a whole, my experience, sir?
Q.     Yes. Yes, your feelings.
A.     My feelings on it is I support diversity in education, and I don't think that the state should make every school for everything all the time. I think that we have certain situations where I want equal opportunity, but by the same token, I also think that the stand that we are taking in the seeking of diversity of the education I think is a very modernistic approach to education. And I support that.
Q.     Thank you, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Littlejohn.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN:
Q.     Are you telling us that you favor women in the corps then, Mr. Peper?
A.     Personally, I do not, sir. I favor the existing admissions practice, and I have voted for that as it's on the record. However, I will state that if told by the Fourth Circuit and/or the District Court, wherever it finally stops, we will do whatever we have to do, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions for the Colonel? Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Yes.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q.     Mr. Peper, presently serving as a board member, what do you think that you have brought to the Citadel, and then we'll get to my second question on affirmative action?
A.     Okay.
Q.     But tell -
A.     What I have brought to - prior to my election, obviously, I am the second youngest member on the board. The Citadel board historically has been one of more mature in age gentlemen. There are two things that I have brought. I brought what I considered to be a fresh new look to it, from an age standpoint, from a business standpoint as well.

I'm not in the retired state. I'm still an active business man. But more importantly than that is I am also a field grade officer in the United States Marine Corps Reserves, and I am the only member on the board that's presently in the Reserves, and I do a lot of work with the ROTC programs as far as advising them, which courses they need to be taking to prepare to go to flight school as I did and - and other educational opportunities.

Going back to the funding, I might throw in that I attended the Citadel on a full ROTC scholarship, three and a half years. But I was also able to work a paper route. I delivered The Post and Courier for my four years there.

But I think when you go back to the funding, Mr. Inabinett, I think we need to stop cutting. I think we just - the cutting is cut. There ain't more cutting to be there. What we need to do is find out where we're going to get more money to pay for this education. I think what we ought to be doing is looking at alternative sources of revenue earmarked for education as opposed to keep trying to figure how we're going to get by on a percentage formula.
Q.     Your service as - during your time as a member of the Board of Visitors, have there been any incidences on campus that may have brought your services in question?
A.     No, ma'am. Not at all.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Yes. One other on the affirmative action.
Q.     Looking at South Carolina and with the information that you just stated on our need for resources and other sources of revenue in this state, how as a board of visitors member, how would you address and answer the question on affirmative action?

There is a need in this state for us to come into the 21st century realizing that multicultural education, diversity is the way for the 21st century. Bearing that in mind, and with your stance for single gender education -
A.     Yes, ma'am.
Q.     - what about -
A.     I'm going to tell you, I'm very proud of the Citadel board as a collective group, but I'm going to also commend the candidates I've seen today for the South Carolina State board, I've been very impressed. And I could tell you if my service is fortunate to be reelected, the first thing I'm going to do is recommend our president that we have a joint trustee meeting with the Citadel Board and South Carolina State trustees. I've seen some individuals here I think we could really learn some things from today. So I'd like to commend them.

Regarding affirmative action at the Citadel, I don't think anybody is happy where they are. I think everyone is always striving for more. As I tell my son, there's two kinds of people in this world, there's givers and takers, and there's no in between, you're either one or the other, and that's all there is to it. And giving back to the Citadel is my goal.

Going back to the affirmative action question, what I really think, and we're stressing this with our foundation department presently, is that in our recruitment, we specifically are trying to recruit minority African-American professors. Unfortunately, so is everyone else. And there are a lot of schools that are able to pay more than we are.

And one of the things that we're looking at is an added stipend for filling some of those positions. And, so I can't say that - I want equal for everybody. And I'm very proud of our school and I'm proud of what we've done. Should we be satisfied? No, ma'am, we should not be. We should always be striving for better.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any others? Thank you, Colonel. Next we have Dennis J. Rhoad.
DENNIS J. RHOAD, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
MR. RHOAD - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q.     Mr. Rhoad, do you have any health related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
A.     No, sir, I don't.
Q.     Considering your present occupation or other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     Do you have any interest professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of service on the board?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A.     No, sir.
SENATOR WILSON:     Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Wilson.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q.     Mr. Rhoad, what would you propose to promote a four year graduation rate at the Citadel?
A.     Senator Wilson, what I would propose given my background, and I think I've included a brief resume in my information, I teach as an adjunct professor on the Citadel campus now every other semester. I teach a Constitutional Law class, and I believe while the Citadel's four-year graduation rate is excellent, one of the things that I think is being lost at the Citadel and other colleges and universities is the glitter, if you will, of teaching.

I think that a lot of professors spend too much time pursuing their scholarly publication goals and what have you, and as a result of that, I think the emphasis is away from the classroom. And when you have a small student-professor ratio, it's critically important that the classroom be the focus. And I think that a lot of students who might ordinarily be average or mediocre will try even harder and pursue graduation goals even more fiercely if there's a feeling of the professor wants that, wants that graduation. I think that that's one of the things that the Citadel could improve on. Other schools as well.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions? Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q.     You made an interesting point about teaching which I certainly agree with you a hundred percent, it should be emphasized more at the college level. Does the Citadel have kind of graduate assistant kind of thing that we have at the university where freshmen and sophomore years you're fortunate if you get a real live fully paid professor teaching you? Do they have graduate students doing some teaching?
A.     No, sir, not at the Citadel. They have some adjunct professors such as myself, but there are no Citadel graduate students teaching in the liberal arts part that I know of. There may be some of that in the physical education department with the fifth year athlete and coaching.
Q.     Thank you.
A.     But not in the liberal arts area.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Inabinett.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q.     Mr. Rhoad, I believe we may have an unsolved situation involving weapon of some sort at the Citadel a year or two ago?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     How do you - will you address the issue of the possibility of students being allowed to legally carry concealed weapons on campus?
A.     Well, under the current Citadel rules you agree not to bring a weapon on campus as a student, as a Citadel cadet, unless you have it registered and it's a hunting weapon. I mean if you want to bring a shotgun home and store it in the Public Safety's office - Public Safety Department's office you have to get permission for that. And if you're on the pistol team or something, you have a registered weapon along those lines.

If this proposed legislation that I've been reading about is passed, as a lawyer if I was on the board, I would try to look at the law and determine if the Citadel can continue to restrict as a requirement of attending the use of a weapon or the carrying of a weapon. And if they could do so constitutionally, I'd be in favor of continuing that policy. I don't think it's a good idea to have, you know, weapons on campus. I don't even believe a Citadel cadet can without violating the Citadel's rules, and I believe it's possibly an expulsion offense, carry a handgun in his glove compartment even though South Carolina law allows that.
Q.     Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MR. RHOAD:
Q.     Mr. Rhoad, why do you want to serve on the Board of Visitors?
A.     Well, there are several reasons, Senator Glover. I'm young, and I have a wife and one child and another one on the way, and I think that now is a good time for me when I'm active in civic groups and I'm active in my law practice to serve on the Citadel Board of Visitors. I'm not so far removed from having attended the Citadel that I think that gives me some insight perhaps some of the older members on the board don't have.

And in addition to that, the Citadel needs young bright leadership, just like all colleges do, and I'd like to serve my alma mater and lend to them, you know, my experience and my education and my service.

Q.     Your views on affirmative action?
A.     I've been listening to that question, I presume I'm the last one here today, if by affirmative action you mean judging someone on their merit regardless of what race, creed, gender they are, then I'm all in favor of affirmative action.

I think that we could perhaps look at the institution now as well as other institutions and perhaps the people serving those institutions that don't have the same qualifications as someone else might have, I think that an opportunity for someone to excel based upon, you know, one's merit should not be denied anyone at all.
Q.     What are your personal feelings on the Shannon Faulkner situation? How do you feel about the Citadel and the acceptance of Ms. Faulkner?
A.     You're asking my personal feeling? It's interesting that you asked us that because two years ago I ran into the current chairman of the board at the Citadel and he said, "Did you wife have the baby?" And I said yes. He said, "Great." I said, "Well, it's the class of 2018" or whatever. And he said "Oh, you had a son." And I said, "No, I had a daughter." And so he laughed and I laughed.

However, personally, having graduated from the Citadel and having seen the success rate and successes of the Citadel, I personally believe that the small, single gender environment would be changed dramatically and because of that, I'm not in favor of Ms. Faulkner attending the Citadel. However, as an adjunct professor teaching constitutional law, I'm a bit surprised by the Fourth Circuit's Court of Opinion. In fact, I thought they would probably say, you know, to the Citadel you need to admit Ms. Faulkner. And if, of course, that happened, I'm sure as a board member, I would as the other board members follow the court's order.

What the court's done now though is they've put us in a situation obviously where they've said okay, you can either admit Ms. Faulkner or you can try to come up with a parallel program, whatever that may be. But personally, I would be in favor of it remaining the way it is, single gender because I've done some research in the - into the empirical study about single gender education, and it is a fact that - I mean an undisputed fact regardless of what side of the constitutional issue you fall, that single gender education, you know, has great returns and great merits and I'm afraid that, you know, we'd lose some of that. It's not personal against Ms. Faulkner. It would be the changing of the single gender nature.
Q.     So your firstborn is now out of her Citadel education?
A.     Well, now, you didn't ask me that question.
Q.     No, you mentioned it. I just wanted to know.
A.     I - that would be a very difficult thing if my daughter wanted to attend the Citadel. I'm not sure how I would approach that. I've got 16 years, though.
Q.     Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Littlejohn.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN:
Q.     Mr. Rhoad, as you know many Citadel cadets carry swords?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     If we pass this gun law, do you think a Citadel senior would treat a weapon, a pistol, any different than he would a sword?
A.     Is that assuming that -
Q.     That's assuming they could carry inside -
A.     - you would be able to carry a gun?
Q.     Yes, sir.
A.     I would hope that the average Citadel cadet would treat a handgun more carefully.
Q.     But you know they would, don't you?
A.     I beg your pardon.
Q.     You know they would treat their pistol or weapon the same as they would the sword?
A.     I would hope so, yes, sir. The reason -
Q.     You don't know that being a Citadel graduate?
A.     Well, you know, I've learned not to answer, you know, yes and no being a lawyer. But I would believe that and I would hope that would be the case.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Rhoad.
A.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     That completes our screening process of all candidates who were opposed. The unopposed were exempted. Do I hear a motion?
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     Mr. Chairman, I move that all candidates screened today be reported as qualified, certified to -
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Inabinett moves that all candidates heard today be reported as qualified? Hear a second.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN:     Second.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Littlejohn second. All in favor say aye, no -
SENATOR GLOVER:     No. Question.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes, ma'am. Senator.
SENATOR GLOVER:     Mr. Stoddard, I'm concerned that during the course of our screening that we have lost many of the voting members for - to declare a candidate. I'd like to know if you think it's possible for us as a committee to come back maybe at a later time to -
THE CHAIRMAN:     Well, we could do that, but with Mr. Giese's proxy that would be give us a majority. And he left that with me.
SENATOR GLOVER:     I have some concerns about some candidates and could not vote for all of them to be -
THE CHAIRMAN:     Well, if you would withdraw your motion.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:     Withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I'll accept the motion. We'll meet at 9:30 in the morning.
SENATOR GLOVER:     That would be fine.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All in favor say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it. Thank you for coming.
(There being nothing further, the proceedings concluded at 11:00 a.m.)

This is to certify that the proceedings, consisting of ninety-five (95) pages, is a true and correct transcript of the proceedings; said proceedings were reported by the method of Stenotype with Backup.

I further certify that I am neither employed by nor related to any of the parties in this matter or their counsel; nor do I have any interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 26th day of April, 1995.

/s/Elaine M. Boyd
Certified Court Reporter (ID)
Notary Public for South Carolina
My commission Expires: March 9, 2002

The Committee met at 9:30 a.m. and all members were present. Upon a motion of Rep. Inabinett, seconded by Rep. Littlejohn, the committee met in executive session at the request of Col. Stephen Peper, an incumbent candidate for the Citadel Board. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Peper who stated "Gentlemen, I have enjoyed serving on the Citadel Board but due to pressing business interests and loyalty to my family, there just is not enough time to serve my alma mater that I love so much. At this time I would like to withdraw from the race." Rep. Inabinett moved that the Committee accept his withdrawal, seconded by Senator Giese. The motion carried unanimously. Senator Wilson moved that the committee rise. The Committee then repeated its actions taken in executive session. Upon motion of Rep. Littlejohn, the Committee adjourned.

On motion of Rep. STODDARD, the report was ordered printed in the Journal.

Rep. QUINN, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report, on:

Invitation of the Governor for a legislative reception, May 17, 1995, 6:00-8:00 P.M. on the Mall at the Governor's Mansion.

The invitation was accepted.

Rep. CATO, from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 3996 -- Reps. Richardson and Cato: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-590, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, THE SOUTH CAROLINA REINSURANCE FACILITY, AND DESIGNATED PRODUCERS, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN PROVISIONS, AND PROVIDE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT EVERY DESIGNATED PRODUCER SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN REPORT TO THE FACILITY GOVERNING BOARD EVERY TWO YEARS, ON THE ANNIVERSARY DATE OF THEIR DESIGNATIONS, OUTLINING ALL EFFORTS MADE TO ATTRACT A VOLUNTARY MARKET IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE PLACEMENT OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE IN THE FACILITY; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 38-77-596 SO AS TO PROVIDE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT UPON NOTIFICATION TO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE REINSURANCE FACILITY, DESIGNATED PRODUCERS MAY CONTRACT WITH A VOLUNTARY MARKET OUTLET FOR ANY TYPE OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CEDEABLE TO THE FACILITY.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. HARRISON, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

S. 9 -- Senators Holland, Saleeby, McConnell, Moore, Matthews, Stilwell, Courtney, Jackson, Rose and Giese: A BILL TO ADOPT THE UNITED STATES CENSUS OF 1990 AS THE TRUE AND CORRECT ENUMERATION OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND OF THE SEVERAL COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES, AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE; TO AMEND TITLE 2, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 2-1-65, SO AS TO ESTABLISH ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ARE ELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES CENSUS OF 1990 COMMENCING WITH THE 1996 GENERAL ELECTION, TO DESIGNATE THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE AS THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL OF THE SUBMITTING AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SUBMISSION OF THE SENATE REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN CONTAINED IN THIS ACT TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 2-1-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CURRENT ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ARE ELECTED SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

The following Bills and Joint Resolution were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

H. 4178 -- Reps. Shissias, P. Harris, Chamblee, McTeer, D. Smith and Carnell: A JOINT RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE GOVERNOR TO APPOINT A TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP A PLAN TO RESTRUCTURE AND CONSOLIDATE STATE LEVEL PROGRAMS WHICH PLAN, FUND, REGULATE, AND DELIVER LONG-TERM CARE SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY; AND TO DEVELOP A PLAN WHICH ADDRESSES LOCAL LEVEL COORDINATION OF THESE SERVICES.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 4179 -- Reps. Askins and Lanford: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-11-540, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DAMAGING OR DESTROYING A BUILDING, VEHICLE, OR OTHER PROPERTY BY MEANS OF EXPLOSIVE OR INCENDIARY, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT A PERSON MUST SUFFER THE DEATH PENALTY WHO WILFULLY AND UNLAWFULLY DAMAGES OR DESTROYS OR ATTEMPTS TO DAMAGE OR DESTROY CERTAIN PROPERTY BY MEANS OF AN EXPLOSIVE OR INCENDIARY AND CAUSES DEATH.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 4180 -- Reps. Vaughn, Herdklotz, Cato, Easterday, Jaskwhich, Tripp, Rice, Anderson and McMahand: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-280, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO GREENVILLE COUNTY VOTING PRECINCTS, SO AS TO CHANGE POLLING PLACES, RENAME PRECINCTS, AND ADD PRECINCTS.

On motion of Rep. VAUGHN, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

S. 731 -- Senator Moore: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-45-130, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXAMINATION OF PHYSICAL THERAPISTS, SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE PASSING SCORE FOR EXAMINATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 806 -- Senator Land: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DAVID WELLS, JR., OF ALCOLU FOR HIS EXEMPLARY SERVICE TO HIS COMMUNITY.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 809 -- Senators Hayes, Peeler, Short and Gregory: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF C. EDGAR WILLIAMS, JR., OF ROCK HILL, AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.

The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.

Allison                Anderson               Askins
Bailey                 Baxley                 Beatty
Boan                   Breeland               Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, T.              Canty
Cato                   Cave                   Chamblee
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Cotty
Cromer                 Dantzler               Delleney
Easterday              Elliott                Fleming
Gamble                 Govan                  Hallman
Harrell                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Harrison               Herdklotz              Hines
Huff                   Hutson                 Inabinett
Jaskwhich              Jennings               Keegan
Kelley                 Keyserling             Kinon
Kirsh                  Knotts                 Lanford
Limbaugh               Littlejohn             Lloyd
Marchbanks             McAbee                 McCraw
McKay                  McMahand               McTeer
Meacham                Neilson                Rice
Riser                  Rogers                 Sandifer
Seithel                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Spearman               Stoddard               Stuart
Thomas                 Trotter                Tucker
Vaughn                 Walker                 Wells
Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.            Wilder
Wilkins                Williams               Wofford
Worley                 Wright                 Young, J.

I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Wednesday, May 3.

Thomas N. Rhoad                   Alma W. Byrd
James N. Law                      Dave C. Waldrop, Jr.
William D. Witherspoon            Bradley D. Cain
H.B. Limehouse, III               Alfred B. Robinson, Jr.
James S. Klauber                  Annette Young
Olin R. Phillips                  Leon Howard
Rudolph M. Mason                  James H. Hodges
Juanita M. White                  Ronald P. Townsend
Daniel T. Cooper                  L. Morgan Martin
G. Ralph Davenport, Jr.           Timothy C. Wilkes
Grady A. Brown                    Larry L. Koon
Michael L. Fair                   Scott H. Richardson
Harry C. Stille                   John L. Scott, Jr.
Kenneth Kennedy                   Dan L. Tripp
Ronald C. Fulmer                  June S. Shissias
Bessie Moody-Lawrence             Richard M. Quinn, Jr.
Marion P. Carnell                 Joseph H. Neal
C. Alex Harvin, III               John G. Felder
Terry E. Haskins

The SPEAKER granted Rep. WHATLEY a leave of absence for the day.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. McELVEEN a leave of absence for the day.

Announcement was made that Dr. Beverly Simons of Columbia is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.

I missed yesterday and part of today due to illness.

Rep. RICHARD M. QUINN, JR.

The following Bills and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate.

H. 4170 -- Reps. Rhoad and Cave: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1090 OF 1972, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO BAMBERG-EHRHARDT SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE AND DENMARK-OLAR SCHOOL DISTRICT TWO, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THESE DISTRICTS SHALL RECEIVE COMPENSATION OF ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS EACH CALENDAR YEAR.

H. 3898 -- Rep. Sharpe: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-23-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CERTIFICATES OF TITLE FOR WATERCRAFT AND OUTBOARD MOTORS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES BE SWORN TO BEFORE NOTARY PUBLICS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE PERSONS.

H. 4144 -- Education and Public Works Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, RELATING TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND UNIT STANDARDS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM APPROVAL IN SOUTH CAROLINA, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1835, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

H. 4005 -- Reps. Richardson and Cato: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-510, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA REINSURANCE FACILITY AND THE FACILITY'S DUTIES GENERALLY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FOR MULTI-VEHICLE INSURANCE POLICIES, ONE OR MORE VEHICLES MAY BE CEDED TO THE FACILITY AS LONG AS THE INSURER IDENTIFIES TO THE FACILITY AND THE INSURED PRECISELY WHICH VEHICLES ARE RETAINED AND WHICH ARE CEDED AND THE RATE LEVEL FOR EACH VEHICLE.

H. 3852 -- Rep. Fair: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-79-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF PHYSICAL FITNESS SERVICES CONTRACTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THEY ARE UNENFORCEABLE IF THE CONTRACT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH STATE OR FEDERAL LAW; TO AMEND SECTION 44-79-70, RELATING TO RIGHTS AGAINST SUCCESSORS TO CONTRACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO PURCHASER OF A CONTRACT ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING PHYSICAL FITNESS SERVICES MAY COLLECT ON THE CONTRACT OR REPORT A DELINQUENCY UNDER THE CONTRACT IF THE CONTRACT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CHAPTER; AND TO AMEND SECTION 44-79-80, RELATING TO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO INCLUDE IN THE EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, FACILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN IN CONTINUOUS OPERATION FOR TEN OR MORE YEARS.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 773 -- Senator Lander: A BILL TO CREATE THE REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMISSION FOR SALUDA COUNTY AND TO ABOLISH THE SALUDA COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF SALUDA COUNTY AND DEVOLVE THEIR POWERS AND DUTIES UPON THE REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMISSION.

Rep. SPEARMAN moved to table the Bill, which was agreed to.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 533 -- Finance Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-220, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO ALLOW A GOVERNING BODY OF A MUNICIPALITY BY ORDINANCE TO EXEMPT FROM MUNICIPAL AD VALOREM TAX FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE MUNICIPALITY RECEIVING THE FIVE-YEAR EXEMPTION FROM COUNTY AD VALOREM TAXES AS NEW CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, CORPORATE OFFICE FACILITIES, DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES, AND ADDITIONS TO SUCH FACILITIES, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS EXEMPTION FIRST IS ALLOWED WHEN THE STATE CONSTITUTION IS AMENDED SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE EXEMPTION.

Reps. SHEHEEN, CAVE, KIRSH, WHITE and COBB-HUNTER objected to the Bill.

Rep. BAILEY moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Tuesday, May 9, which was adopted.

S. 602 -- Senators Short, Jackson, Gregory and Giese: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 34-29-100, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO RECORDS AND REPORTS OF RESTRICTED LENDERS, BY ADDING INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT MADE BY RESTRICTED LENDERS; TO AMEND SECTION 34-29-140 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO CHARGES PERMITTED TO RESTRICTED LENDERS, SO AS TO REVISE THE FINANCE CHARGES AND TO PROVIDE LIMITATIONS ON LOAN RENEWALS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-1-301 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION CODE, SO AS TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR "DEBT COLLECTOR"; TO AMEND SECTION 37-1-303 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE INDEX OF DEFINITIONS IN TITLE 37, SO AS TO ADD "DEBT COLLECTOR"; TO AMEND SECTION 37-3-201 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO LOAN FINANCE CHARGES FOR SUPERVISED LOANS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SUPERVISED LOANS NOT EXCEEDING SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS SHALL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 34-29-140 RELATING TO FINANCE CHARGES FOR RESTRICTED LOANS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-3-305 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE POSTING AND FILING OF MAXIMUM RATE SCHEDULES BY SUPERVISED LENDERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FOR LOANS NOT EXCEEDING SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS, A RATE MAY NOT BE POSTED WHICH EXCEEDS THE CHARGES IMPOSED IN SECTION 34-29-140; TO AMEND SECTION 37-3-505 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO RECORDS AND ANNUAL REPORTS FOR SUPERVISED LENDERS, SO AS TO ADD INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT OF SUPERVISED LENDERS; TO AMEND PART 5, CHAPTER 3, TITLE 37 OF THE 1976 CODE, BY ADDING SECTION 37-3-515 SO AS TO PROVIDE A LIMITATION ON LOAN RENEWALS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-5-108 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO UNCONSCIONABILITY UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION CODE, BY ADDING PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CONSTITUTE UNCONSCIONABILITY AND PROVIDING REMEDIES; TO AMEND SECTION 37-6-117 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE ADMINISTRATION TO DEVISE A PAMPHLET FOR DISTRIBUTION TO CERTAIN CONSUMERS INFORMING THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 37-9-102 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE LICENSURE ELECTION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN SUPERVISED LENDERS MAY ELECT TO BE RESTRICTED LENDERS.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3870 -- Rep. Walker: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-71-730, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP ACCIDENT, GROUP HEALTH, AND GROUP ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES AND PROVISIONS LIMITING COVERAGE FOR PREEXISTING CONDITIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT POLICIES OF DISABILITY INCOME INSURANCE MAY EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR DISABILITIES BEGINNING DURING THE FIRST TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF COVERAGE WHICH RESULT FROM A PREEXISTING CONDITION.

The Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\BBM\10194JM.95), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 38-71-730(4), as contained in SECTION 1 and inserting:

/"(4)     The policies may contain a provision limiting coverage for preexisting conditions. The preexisting conditions must be covered no later than twelve months without medical care, treatment, or supplies ending after the effective date of the coverage or twelve months after the effective date of the coverage, whichever occurs first. Policies of disability income insurance may exclude coverage for disabilities beginning during the first twelve months after the effective date of coverage which result from a preexisting condition. Preexisting conditions are defined as 'those conditions for which medical advice or treatment was received or recommended no more than twelve months before the effective date of a person's coverage'. However, whenever a covered person moves from one insured group to another, the insurer of the group to which the covered person moves shall give credit for the satisfaction of the preexisting condition period or portion thereof already served under the prior plan if the coverage is selected when the person first becomes eligible and the coverage is continuous to a date not more than thirty days prior to the effective date of the new coverage. Service under a probationary waiting period required by the employer is not considered to interrupt continuous service."/

Amend title to conform.

Rep. NEILSON explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. NEILSON explained the Bill.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bills and Joint Resolutions were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:

H. 4042 -- Reps. Simrill and Elliott: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR TEMPORARY QUALIFICATIONS AND FEES FOR LICENSURE AS A HOME INSPECTOR.

Rep. SIMRILL explained the Joint Resolution.

H. 4043 -- Reps. Simrill and Elliott: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF ACT 463 OF 1994, RELATING TO HOME AND COMMERCIAL INSPECTORS.

H. 4064 -- Rep. Cato: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN THE UNIFORM STANDARDS CODE FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING ACT, SO AS TO DEFINE "MOBILE HOME" AND TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "MANUFACTURED HOME"; TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-40, RELATING TO STATE POLICY FOR SAFETY IN CONSTRUCTION OF MANUFACTURED HOMES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS CHAPTER ALSO APPLIES TO MOBILE HOMES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-100, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LICENSURE TO SELL MANUFACTURED HOMES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT GROUNDS FOR DENYING A LICENSE INCLUDE CRIMINAL CONDUCT AND VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 29, TITLE 40.

Rep. ELLIOTT explained the Bill.

S. 482 -- Senator Reese: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-23-210 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY STUDENT WHO CARRIES ON HIS PERSON, IN A BOOK BAG, OR PLACES IN A LOCKER OR DESK A FIREARM, OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF WEAPON, DEVICE, OR OBJECT WHICH MAY BE USED TO INFLICT BODILY INJURY OR DEATH WHILE ON ANY ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOL PROPERTY MUST BE EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR EXPULSIONS.

Rep. JASKWHICH explained the Bill.

H. 3710 -- Reps. Keyserling, Richardson, Seithel, L. Whipper, Whatley and Jaskwhich: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXTEND THE EXEMPTION ALLOWED MANUFACTURING MACHINERY TO MACHINERY USED FOR RECYCLING AND TO DEFINE "RECYCLING".

Rep. ROBINSON explained the Bill.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4055 -- Rep. Cato: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN THE UNIFORM STANDARDS CODE FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING ACT, SO AS TO DEFINE "MANUFACTURED HOME CONTRACTOR", "MANUFACTURED HOME INSTALLER", AND "MANUFACTURED HOME REPAIRER"; TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-30, RELATING TO THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING BOARD, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MEMBERSHIP FROM NINE TO TEN; TO AMEND SECTION 49-29-100, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LICENSES TO SELL MANUFACTURED HOMES, SO AS TO ALSO REQUIRE A MANUFACTURED HOME CONTRACTOR, INSTALLER, AND REPAIRER TO BE LICENSED AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-110, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE, SO AS TO ALSO PROVIDE THAT A MANUFACTURED HOME CONTRACTOR, INSTALLER, OR REPAIRER MUST COMPLETE ANY TRAINING REQUIRED BY THE BOARD; TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-120, RELATING TO SURETY BOND REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE BOND REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME CONTRACTORS, INSTALLERS, AND REPAIRERS; TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-130, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEMNIFICATION FROM SECURITY, SO AS TO INCLUDE MANUFACTURED HOME CONTRACTORS, INSTALLERS, AND REPAIRERS IN THESE REQUIREMENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-150, RELATING TO GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE, SO AS TO ALSO APPLY STANDARDS TO MANUFACTURED HOME INSTALLATION, REPAIR, AND MODIFICATION; TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-160, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PENALTIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY MAY APPLY TO A PERSON ENGAGING IN ANY ACTIVITY FOR WHICH A LICENSE IS REQUIRED UNDER CHAPTER 29; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-170, RELATING TO WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME CONTRACTORS, INSTALLERS, AND REPAIRERS.

The Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\BR1\18446AC.95), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered section to read:

/SECTION     __.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 56-5-4195.     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person moving or hauling a mobile home on the highways of this State shall travel at a maximum speed no greater than ten miles below the posted speed limit."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. ELLIOTT explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 238 -- Senators Leatherman and Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-33-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1987, SO AS TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE DEFINITION OF "COPAYMENT" OR "DEDUCTIBLE"; TO AMEND SECTION 38-33-80, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1987, THE PROVISION THAT THE ENROLLEE IS ENTITLED TO EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE, THE CONTENTS OF THE EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE, DISCONTINUANCE OR REPLACEMENT OF COVERAGE, AND CHARGES FOR SERVICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION THAT ISSUES A HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION CONTRACT WHICH REQUIRES THE ENROLLEE TO PAY A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE COST OF COVERED HEALTH CARE SERVICES SHALL CALCULATE THOSE COPAYMENTS AND DEDUCTIBLES ON THE NEGOTIATED REDUCED RATE OF THE PROVIDER, AND PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PRECLUDES A HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION FROM ISSUING A CONTRACT WHICH CONTAINS FIXED DOLLAR COPAYMENTS AND DEDUCTIBLES; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-241 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN INSURER THAT NEGOTIATES REDUCED RATES WITH PROVIDERS FOR COVERED HEALTH CARE SERVICES UNDER AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY MUST PROVIDE THAT PERCENTAGE COPAYMENTS AND DEDUCTIBLES PAID BY THE INSURED ARE APPLIED TO THE NEGOTIATED REDUCED RATES OF THAT PROVIDER, AND PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PRECLUDES AN INSURER FROM ISSUING A POLICY WHICH CONTAINS FIXED DOLLAR COPAYMENTS AND DEDUCTIBLES.

The Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\BBM\10195JM.95), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:

/SECTION     1.     Section 38-33-20(3) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 403 of 1992, is further amended to read:

"(3)     'Copayment' or 'deductible' means the amount specified in the evidence of coverage that the enrollee shall pay directly to the provider for covered health care services, which may be stated in either specific dollar amounts or as a percentage of the provider's usual or customary charge negotiated rate of the provider. For good cause shown, the Director of the South Carolina Department of Insurance may, in his discretion, approve forms with provisions which vary from the provisions required in this subsection if he finds the provisions are more favorable to the enrollee."

SECTION     2.     Section 38-33-80(A) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Section 633 of Act 181 of 1993, is further amended by adding:

"(7)     A health maintenance organization that issues a health maintenance organization contract which requires the enrollee to pay a specified percentage of the cost of covered health care services shall calculate those copayments and deductibles on the negotiated rate of the provider. Nothing in this section precludes a health maintenance organization from issuing a contract which contains fixed dollar copayments and deductibles."

SECTION     3.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 38-71-241.     An insurer that negotiates rates with providers for covered health care services under an individual or group accident and health insurance policy must provide that percentage copayments and deductibles paid by the insured are applied to the negotiated reduced rates of that provider. Nothing in this section precludes an insurer from issuing a policy which contains fixed dollar copayments and deductibles."

SECTION     4.     Section 38-33-80(B), (C), and (D) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Section 66 of Act 181 of 1993, are further amended to read:

"(B)(1)     No schedule of charges for enrollee coverage for health care services applicable to individual health maintenance organization contracts may be used until a copy of the schedule has been filed with and approved by the director or his designee. The director or his designee may disapprove this schedule of charges if it is determined that the benefits provided in the contracts are unreasonable in relation to the charges.

(2)     The charges may be established in accordance with actuarial principles for various categories of enrollees, provided that charges applicable to an enrollee may not be individually determined based on the status of his health. However, the charges may not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. A certification, by a qualified actuary or other qualified person acceptable to the director or his designee to the appropriateness of the use of the charges, based on reasonable assumptions, shall accompany the filing along with adequate supporting information.

(3)     Nothing herein may be construed to require individual approval of rates for each contract issued in conformity with a schedule of charges filed with and approved by the director or his designee.

(C)     The director or his designee shall, within a reasonable period, approve any form if the requirements of subsection (A) are met and any schedule of charges if the requirements of subsection (B) are met. It is unlawful to issue a form or to use a schedule of charges until approved. If the director or his designee disapproves the filing, he shall notify the filer. In the notice, the director or his designee shall specify The notice must contain the reasons for his disapproval, and the filer, upon request in writing, is entitled to a public hearing thereon. A hearing must be granted within forty-five days after a request in writing by the person filing. If the director or his designee does not no action is taken to approve or disapprove any form or schedule of charges within ninety days of the filing of the forms or charges, they are considered the filing is deemed approved.

(D)     The director or his designee may require the submission of such relevant information as he considers necessary in determining whether to approve or disapprove a filing made pursuant to this section At any time the director or his designee, after a public hearing of which at least thirty days' notice has been given, may withdraw approval of a schedule of charges previously approved under subsection (B) or an evidence of coverage approved under subsection (A) if he determined that the schedule of charges or evidence of coverage no longer meets the standards for approval specified in this section."

SECTION     5.     Section 38-55-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 38-55-20.     Every insurer shall conduct its business in the state in, and the policies and contracts of insurance issued by it must be headed or entitled only by, its proper or corporate name; provided, however, notwithstanding any other provision of law, an insurer may elect to use a trade name in the conduct of its business if the insurer also clearly discloses its proper or corporate name on its policies, contracts of insurance, and other documents filed with the Department of Insurance. Two or more authorized insurers may, with the approval of the director or his designee, issue a combination policy which shall contain provisions substantially as follows:

(1)     That the insurers executing the policy are severally liable for the full amount of any loss or damage, according to the terms of the policy, or for specified percentages or amounts thereof aggregating the full amount of insurance under the policy; and

(2)     That service of process or of any notice or proof of loss required by the policy upon any of the insurers executing the policy constitutes service upon all the insurers."

SECTION     6.     Subsection (D) of Section 38-55-570, as added by Section 31A, Part II, of Act 497 of 1994, is further amended to read:

"(D)     Except as otherwise provided by law, any information furnished pursuant to this section is privileged and shall not be part of any public record. Any information or evidence furnished to an authorized agency pursuant to this section is not subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum in any civil or criminal proceeding unless, after reasonable notice to any person, insurer, or authorized agency which has an interest in the information and after a subsequent hearing, a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the public interest and any ongoing investigation will not be jeopardized by obedience of the subpoena or subpoena duces tecum. The Department of Insurance may receive and must maintain as confidential any documents or information furnished to it by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners or insurance departments of other states which is classified as confidential by that Association or state. The Department of Insurance may share documents or information, including confidential documents or information, with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners or insurance departments of other states, if the Association or other state agrees to maintain the same level of confidentiality as is provided under South Carolina law. If the documents or information received by the Department of Insurance from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners or the insurance departments of other states involve allegations of insurance fraud, the documents or information must be forwarded by the Department of Insurance to the Insurance Fraud Division of the Office of the Attorney General."

SECTION     7.     Sections 4 and 6 of this act take effect upon approval by the Governor.

SECTION     8.     Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, this act takes effect one hundred twenty days after approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. NEILSON explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3473 -- Reps. J. Brown, White, Neilson and Breeland: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-67-95 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL SCHOOL BUSES PURCHASED AFTER JUNE 30, 1996, MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH LAP OR SHOULDER HARNESS SAFETY BELTS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-6530, RELATING TO EXCEPTIONS FOR MANDATORY USE OF SEAT BELTS, SO AS TO EXCLUDE SCHOOL BUSES PURCHASED AFTER JUNE 30, 1996, FROM THE EXCEPTIONS.

The Education and Public Works Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\DKA\3956CM.95), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:

/SECTION     1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-67-95.     (A)     For purposes of this section, 'special needs school bus' means a school bus that has special design features to safely transport children with disabilities or children five years of age or younger.

(B)     Every special needs school bus purchased after June 30, 1996, must be equipped with safety belts for use by each person riding the bus. The safety belts must be of a design to provide a lap belt for pelvic restraint or a shoulder harness to restrain upper torso movement.

(C)     The State Department of Education shall promulgate regulations on the type and specification of safety belts to be installed on special needs school buses."

SECTION     2.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. TOWNSEND explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. INABINETT a leave of absence due to illness.

Rep. S. WHIPPER moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 4, which was adopted.

H. 3874 -- Reps. Cobb-Hunter and Shissias: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-6-50, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FINANCE COMMISSION ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS WITH OTHER AGENCIES, SO AS TO EXPAND WITH WHOM THE COMMISSION MAY CONTRACT FOR ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 546 -- Senators Glover and Ford: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-1-260 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OR A PERSON PERFORMING AN EARLY PERIODIC SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT SCREENING (EPSDT) OR EXAMINATION OF A CHILD TO REFER THE CHILD TO AN APPROPRIATE AGENCY FOR AN ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE CHILD MAY BENEFIT FROM SUCH TECHNOLOGY.

Rep. WILDER explained the Bill.

Rep. ELLIOTT moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill until Thursday, May 11, which was adopted.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 357 -- Senator McGill: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXTEND THE EXEMPTION ON ELECTRICITY USED BY MANUFACTURERS, MINERS, OR QUARRIERS TO MANUFACTURE, MINE, OR QUARRY TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR SALE TO INCLUDE ELECTRICITY USED BY COTTON GIN OPERATORS.

The Ways and Means Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\JIC\5741HTC.95).

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding four SECTIONS appropriately numbered to read:

/SECTION ___.     Section 12-21-780 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Section 134, Act 181 of 1993, is further amended to read:

"Section 12-21-780.     Every distributor, shall on or before the tenth twentieth day of each month, shall file with the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation a return on forms to be prescribed and furnished by the department showing the quantity and wholesale price of all tobacco products transported or caused to be transported into the State by him or manufactured or fabricated in the State for sale in this State. Every distributor authorized by the department to make returns and pay the tax on tobacco products sold, shipped, or delivered by him to any person in the State shall file a return showing the quantity and wholesale price of all products so sold, shipped, or delivered during the preceding calendar month. Such These returns shall must contain such further information as the South Carolina department of Revenue and Taxation may require. Every distributor shall pay to the department with the filing of such the return the tax on tobacco products for such the month imposed under this article. When the distributor or dealer files the return and pays the tax within the time specified in this section, he may deduct therefrom two percent of the tax due."

SECTION ___.     Section 12-36-30 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 612 of 1990, is amended to read:

"Section 12-36-30.     'Person' includes any individual, firm, partnership, limited liability company, association, corporation, receiver, trustee, any group or combination acting as a unit, the State, any state agency, any instrumentality, authority, political subdivision, or municipality."

SECTION ___.     Section 12-36-2120(3) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 612 of 1990, is amended to read:

"(3)     (a)     textbooks, books, magazines, and periodicals, newspapers, and access to on-line information systems sold to primary and secondary schools and institutions of higher learning for use in used as a part of a course of study in primary and secondary schools and institutions of higher learning or for students' use in the school library of these schools and institutions;, and all

(b)     books, magazines, and periodicals, newspapers, and access to on-line information systems sold to publicly supported state, county, or regional libraries which are open to the public without charge;

Items in this category may be in any form, including microfilm, microfiche, and CD ROM;"

SECTION ___.     Section 12-36-2120(45) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 171 of 1991, is amended to read:

"(45)     gross proceeds from the sale of building materials, supplies, fixtures, and equipment for the construction, repair, or improvement of or that become a part of a self-contained enclosure or structure specifically designed, constructed, and used for the commercial housing of poultry or livestock."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. ROBINSON explained the amendment.

Further proceedings were interrupted by expiration of time on the uncontested Calendar, the pending question being consideration of Amendment No. 1, Rep. ROBINSON having the floor.

Rep. HUFF moved that the House recur to the morning hour, which was agreed to.

Rep. H. BROWN, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 126 -- Senators Land and Washington: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 9-8-110(2), CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PAYMENTS ON THE DEATH OF A MEMBER OR BENEFICIARY OF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR JUDGES AND SOLICITORS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION TERMINATING BENEFITS PAID TO THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OF A MEMBER ON HER REMARRIAGE.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

The following was introduced:

H. 4181 -- Reps. R. Smith, Sharpe, Clyburn, Huff, Spearman and Mason: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SALUTING BOBBY RUTLAND OF AIKEN COUNTY FOR HIS COMMITMENT TO IMPROVING AND DEVELOPING THE USE OF, AND ACTIVITIES SURROUNDING, LANGLEY POND IN AIKEN COUNTY AS A TRAINING SITE FOR THE 1996 OLYMPIC ROWING TEAMS, AND RECOGNIZING MR. RUTLAND AS A "SOUTH CAROLINA STAR".

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 4182 -- Reps. Vaughn, Allison, Anderson, Askins, Bailey, Baxley, Beatty, Boan, Breeland, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, T. Brown, Byrd, Cain, Canty, Carnell, Cato, Cave, Chamblee, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cooper, Cotty, Cromer, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Easterday, Elliott, Fair, Felder, Fleming, Fulmer, Gamble, Govan, Hallman, Harrell, J. Harris, P. Harris, Harrison, Harvin, Harwell, Haskins, Herdklotz, Hines, Hodges, Howard, Huff, Hutson, Inabinett, Jaskwhich, Jennings, Keegan, Kelley, Kennedy, Keyserling, Kinon, Kirsh, Klauber, Knotts, Koon, Lanford, Law, Limbaugh, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Marchbanks, Martin, Mason, McAbee, McCraw, McElveen, McKay, McMahand, McTeer, Meacham, Moody-Lawrence, Neal, Neilson, Phillips, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Riser, Robinson, Rogers, Sandifer, Scott, Seithel, Sharpe, Sheheen, Shissias, Simrill, D. Smith, R. Smith, Spearman, Stille, Stoddard, Stuart, Thomas, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Tucker, Waldrop, Walker, Wells, Whatley, L. Whipper, S. Whipper, White, Wilder, Wilkes, Wilkins, Williams, Witherspoon, Wofford, Worley, Wright, A. Young and J. Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE MICHELIN COMPANY ON ITS TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF MANUFACTURING AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, AND COMMENDING MICHELIN, THE NUMBER ONE LEADER IN WORLDWIDE TIRE SALES AND TIRE TECHNOLOGY, FOR ITS NUMEROUS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND FOR STANDING AS THE EXEMPLARY BENCHMARK FOR ALL OTHER COMPANIES IN THE PALMETTO STATE.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of Amendment No. 1, Rep. ROBINSON having the floor.

S. 357 -- Senator McGill: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXTEND THE EXEMPTION ON ELECTRICITY USED BY MANUFACTURERS, MINERS, OR QUARRIERS TO MANUFACTURE, MINE, OR QUARRY TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR SALE TO INCLUDE ELECTRICITY USED BY COTTON GIN OPERATORS.

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 1 by the Committee on Ways and Means.

Rep. ROBINSON continued speaking.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bills and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:

H. 4157 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING, AND REGULATION-REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS BOARD, RELATING TO LICENSING, CERTIFICATION, FEES, AND CONTINUING EDUCATION OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1766, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Rep. ELLIOTT explained the Joint Resolution.

H. 4158 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-4-710 AND 12-4-720, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS AND THE METHOD OF APPLYING FOR THE EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO REVISE OR EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING EXEMPTION APPLICATIONS AND ADD ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES OF EXEMPTIONS FOR WHICH NO APPLICATION IS REQUIRED; TO PROVIDE THAT LISTING A PROPERTY AS EXEMPT ON A PROPERTY TAX RETURN IS CONSIDERED AN APPLICATION; TO REQUIRE PROPERTY TAXPAYERS FILING PROPERTY TAX RETURNS TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION ON THE RETURN FOR EACH YEAR THE PROPERTY IS EXEMPT; AND TO PROVIDE WHEN ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS MUST BE FILED BY TAXPAYERS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX RETURNS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-220, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO CONFORM IT TO THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THIS ACT AND TO EXTEND THE EXEMPTION FOR TWO PERSONAL MOTOR VEHICLES OF PERSONS REQUIRED TO USE WHEELCHAIRS TO INSTANCES WHEN THE OWNER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE SPECIAL MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE ALLOWED SUCH PERSONS.

Rep. ROBINSON explained the Bill.

S. 767 -- Senators Matthews and Williams: A BILL TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO REMOVE FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM THAT PORTION OF SECONDARY ROAD S-38-1840 IN ORANGEBURG COUNTY BETWEEN THE GATES AT EITHER END OF THE ORANGEBURG-WILKINSON HIGH SCHOOL.

S. 669 -- Senators J. Verne Smith and Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-6-50, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FINANCE COMMISSION ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS WITH OTHER AGENCIES, SO AS TO EXPAND WITH WHOM THE COMMISSION MAY CONTRACT FOR ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS.

Rep. NEAL explained the Bill.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4159 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-21-3495 SO AS TO LIMIT THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE GAME OF BINGO.

Rep. LANFORD explained the Bill.

Rep. LANFORD moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill, which was adopted.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3416 -- Reps. L. Whipper, Harrell, S. Whipper, Witherspoon, Shissias, Lloyd, Breeland, Dantzler, Hutson and Keyserling: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-101-197 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE REPORTING OF CERTAIN FINANCIAL INFORMATION BY EACH MEDICAL SCHOOL RECEIVING AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE STATE.

Rep. McTEER proposed the following Amendment No. 1, which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered sub-section at the end of subsection B:

( )     the number of out-of-state students and the total number of students in each academic program.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. McTEER explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4037 -- Rep. Boan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-11-720, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENTITIES WHOSE EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE PLANS, SO AS TO ADD FORMER COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO SERVED AT LEAST TWELVE YEARS ON COUNTY COUNCIL AND TO REQUIRE THESE MEMBERS TO PAY THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE PLAN.

The Ways and Means Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\JIC\5868HTC.95), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 1 and inserting:

/SECTION     1.     Section 1-11-730 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 342 of 1994, is further amended by adding at the end:

"(F)     A former municipal or county council member of a county or municipality which participates in the state health and dental insurance plans who served on the council for at least twelve years and who was covered under the plans at the time of termination is eligible to maintain coverage under the plans if the former member pays the full employer and employee contributions and if the county or municipal council elects to allow this coverage for former members."/

Reletter to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. LANFORD explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

Rep. SANDIFER moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill, which was adopted.

S. 463 -- Senator Passailaigue: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-55-310 AND 38-55-330, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT LICENSED FUNERAL DIRECTORS EMPLOYED BY LICENSED FUNERAL HOMES MAY ACT AS AGENTS FOR LIFE INSURERS ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH PRENEED FUNERAL CONTRACTS; TO AMEND SECTION 32-7-25 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO PRENEED FUNERAL CONTRACTS, SO AS TO FURTHER REGULATE PRENEED FUNERAL CONTRACT AGREEMENTS; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, TITLE 32 OF THE 1976 CODE, BY ADDING SECTION 32-7-95 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT LICENSED FUNERAL DIRECTORS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SOLICITATION AND ADVERTISEMENT WHEN ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR A LIFE INSURER.

Rep. LANFORD moved to reconsider the vote whereby debate was adjourned on the following Bill, which was agreed to.

H. 4159 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-21-3495 SO AS TO LIMIT THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE GAME OF BINGO.

Rep. LANFORD proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\PFM\7451BDW.95).

Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 12-21-3495, page 1, line 20, by striking /Profits/ and inserting /Proceeds after expenses/.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. LANFORD explained the amendment and moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill until Thursday, May 4, which was adopted.

Rep. SIMRILL withdrew his objection to H. 3203 however, other objections remained upon the Bill.

Upon the withdrawal of objections by Reps. SCOTT and COOPER the following Bill was taken up.

H. 3779 -- Reps. Elliott, Knotts, Littlejohn, Cato, Simrill, Cain, Mason, Govan, Stuart, Delleney, Neilson, Stille, Tucker, Jennings, Hines, R. Smith, T. Brown, Wright and Riser: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-57-155, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR REAL ESTATE BROKERS AND SALES AGENTS, SO AS TO APPLY THE REQUIREMENTS TO REAL ESTATE PROPERTY MANAGERS, AND PROVIDE THAT, FOR PROPERTY MANAGERS, THE EIGHT HOURS MUST INCLUDE A MINIMUM OF TWO HOURS OF INSTRUCTION ON FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AFFECTING PROPERTY MANAGERS AND THAT THE REMAINING HOURS MUST INCLUDE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT RELATED COURSES.

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 1, which was proposed on Tuesday, May 2, by the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

Rep. ELLIOTT explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. CATO proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\BBM\10262JM.95), which was adopted.

Amend the Committee Report, as and if amended, page 3779-1, line 30, by inserting /licensed/ between /or/ and /property/.

Amend further, line 35, by inserting /licensed/ between /For/ and /property/.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. CATO explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. BAILEY proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\PT\1969AC.95), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:

/"SECTION     ____.     Section 40-57-155(H) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 476 of 1994, is further amended to read:

(H)     A licensee upon reaching the age of sixty-five fifty-five, with a minimum of twenty-five years of licensure, is exempt from the requirements of this section."/

Amend title to conform.

Rep. ELLIOTT explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

Reps. WELLS and STODDARD withdrew their objections to S. 48 however, other objections remained upon the Bill.

The motion of Rep. BAXLEY to reconsider the vote whereby the following Bill was given a third reading was taken up.

H. 3838 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-9-30, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AMOUNT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND PERIOD OF DISABILITY FOR CERTAIN INJURIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A PRESUMPTION OF TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A FIFTY PERCENT OR MORE LOSS OF USE OF THE BACK, AND PROVIDE THAT THIS PRESUMPTION MAY BE REBUTTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

Rep. CATO moved to table the motion to reconsider and demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Askins                 Boan
Cain                   Cato                   Chamblee
Cooper                 Cotty                  Cromer
Dantzler               Easterday              Elliott
Fair                   Felder                 Fleming
Fulmer                 Gamble                 Hallman
Harrell                Harris, J.             Harrison
Herdklotz              Hodges                 Jaskwhich
Jennings               Keegan                 Kelley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Knotts
Koon                   Lanford                Law
Limbaugh               Limehouse              Littlejohn
Marchbanks             Mason                  McAbee
McCraw                 McKay                  Meacham
Neilson                Phillips               Quinn
Rice                   Richardson             Riser
Robinson               Sandifer               Seithel
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Shissias
Simrill                Smith, R.              Spearman
Stoddard               Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Tucker                 Vaughn
Waldrop                Walker                 Wells
Wilder                 Wilkins                Witherspoon
Wofford                Wright                 Young, A.
Young, J.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Baxley                 Breeland
Byrd                   Cave                   Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Delleney               Govan
Harris, P.             Howard                 Kinon
Lloyd                  Moody-Lawrence         Neal
Scott                  Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.
White                  Williams

So, the motion to reconsider was tabled.

On motion of Rep. ROBINSON, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Committee on Ways and Means.

S. 753 -- Senator Passailaigue: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAXATION, BY ADDING CHAPTERS 6, 8, AND 20, SO AS TO REVISE, REORGANIZE, AND RECODIFY STATE TAX LAWS IMPOSING THE INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE INCOME TAX, PROVIDING FOR THE WITHHOLDING OF INCOME TAXES, AND IMPOSING THE CORPORATION LICENSE TAX; TO AMEND TITLE 12 BY ADDING CHAPTERS 56 AND 58, WHICH SHALL CONTAIN RESPECTIVELY THE FORMER PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF CHAPTER 54, THE SETOFF DEBT COLLECTION ACT AND ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER 54, THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAXPAYERS' BILL OF RIGHTS; TO AMEND CHAPTER 54 OF TITLE 12 BY ADDING SECTIONS 12-54-15, 12-54-17, 12-54-42, 12-54-47, 12-54-85, 12-54-127, AND 12-54-135 SO AS TO MOVE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS TO THE CHAPTER CONSTITUTING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF TAXES LEVIED AND ASSESSED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION; BY ADDING SECTION 50-1-280, SO AS TO MOVE THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE NONGAME WILDLIFE AND NATURAL AREAS FUND TO THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION IN TITLE 50, RELATING TO FISH, GAME, AND WATERCRAFT; TO AMEND SECTION 12-4-330, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO WITNESSES BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION, SO AS TO ALLOW THE DIRECTOR AND DESIGNATED OFFICERS TO ADMINISTER OATHS AND TAKE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 11-35-5230, AS AMENDED, 12-37-220, AS AMENDED, 12-54-30, AS AMENDED, 12-54-40, AS AMENDED, 12-54-55, AS AMENDED, 12-54-120, AS AMENDED, 12-54-210, 12-54-240, AS AMENDED, 41-44-10, 41-44-20, AND 41-44-70, ALL RELATING TO TAXATION, SO AS TO CONFORM THE SECTIONS TO THE RECODIFIED CHAPTERS ADDED BY THIS ACT, TO PROVIDE THAT A REPEAL OF A SECTION OF THE 1976 CODE BY THIS ACT DOES NOT PREVENT THE ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF ANY TAX, INTEREST, OR PENALTIES DUE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUAL APPLICATION OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE PREDECESSOR PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTERS ADDED BY THIS ACT, TO PROVIDE FOR CROSS REFERENCES AND THE DUTIES OF THE CODE COMMISSIONER IN THE RECODIFICATION ACCOMPLISHED BY THIS ACT; AND TO REPEAL CHAPTERS 7, 9, AND 19 OF TITLE 12 AND SECTIONS 41-44-30, 41-44-40, 41-44-50, 41-44-90, AND 41-44-100, ALL OF THE 1976 CODE, AND ALL RELATING TO TAXATION, EFFECTIVE FOR TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER 1995.

Rep. HUFF asked unanimous consent to recall H. 3900 from the Committee on Judiciary.

Rep. BAXLEY objected.

Rep. RICHARDSON asked unanimous consent to recall H. 3328 from the Committee on Education and Public Works.

Rep. TOWNSEND objected.

The veto on the following Act was taken up.

(R64) H. 3788 -- Reps. Limehouse, Hallman, Fulmer, Whatley, L. Whipper, Seithel and S. Whipper: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 1595 OF 1972, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CHARLESTON COUNTY PARK, RECREATION AND TOURIST DISTRICT, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF GOLF COURSES.

The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Breeland               Dantzler               Fulmer
Hallman                Harrell                Hutson
Limehouse              Seithel                Whipper, L.
Whipper, S.

Those who voted in the negative are:

So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The veto on the following Act was taken up.

(R63) H. 3728 -- Reps. Hallman, Fulmer, Seithel, Whatley, Harrell, Hutson, S. Whipper and Limehouse: AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT THE CHARLESTON COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT CONTROL IS ABOLISHED AND ITS POWERS AND DUTIES DEVOLVED UPON THE CHARLESTON COUNTY COUNCIL.

The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Dantzler               Fulmer                 Hallman
Harrell                Hutson                 Limehouse
Seithel                Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.

Those who voted in the negative are:

So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The veto on the following Act was taken up.

(R65) H. 3853 -- Rep. Davenport: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 172 OF 1969, RELATING TO THE NORTH SPARTANBURG AREA FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT TO EMPLOY FIREMEN AND OTHER EMPLOYEES NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BOARD.

Rep. WALKER moved to adjourn debate upon the veto, which was adopted.

Debate was resumed in the Motion Period, the pending question being the second substitute motion to recall H. 3772 from the Judiciary Committee.

Rep. SCOTT demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Bailey                 Baxley
Beatty                 Breeland               Brown, G.
Brown, J.              Byrd                   Cave
Chamblee               Cobb-Hunter            Cotty
Cromer                 Dantzler               Elliott
Fulmer                 Gamble                 Govan
Hallman                Harrell                Harrison
Hines                  Howard                 Jennings
Keegan                 Kelley                 Kennedy
Keyserling             Kinon                  Knotts
Law                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Martin                 McAbee
McCraw                 Neilson                Phillips
Richardson             Rogers                 Scott
Seithel                Sheheen                Shissias
Spearman               Stoddard               Thomas
Tucker                 Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.
White                  Wilder                 Williams
Witherspoon            Wofford                Worley
Wright                 Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Boan                   Cain
Canty                  Carnell                Cato
Cooper                 Delleney               Easterday
Fair                   Fleming                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Herdklotz              Hodges
Huff                   Hutson                 Jaskwhich
Kirsh                  Klauber                Koon
Lanford                Limbaugh               Marchbanks
Mason                  McKay                  McMahand
McTeer                 Meacham                Neal
Quinn                  Rice                   Riser
Robinson               Sandifer               Sharpe
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Tripp                  Trotter                Vaughn
Waldrop                Walker                 Wells
Wilkins                Young, J.

So, the motion to recall H. 3772 was agreed to.

Rep. HUFF moved to dispense with the balance of the Motion Period, which was agreed to.

Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of the Bill.

H. 3599 -- Rep. Richardson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-1-360, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE EXEMPTION OF CASUAL EMPLOYEES AND CERTAIN OTHER EMPLOYMENTS FROM TITLE 42, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, SO AS TO ADD TO THE LIST OF SUCH EXEMPTIONS EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE LONGSHORE & HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT.

Rep. RICHARDSON explained the Bill.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. BYRD a temporary leave of absence.

Rep. RICHARDSON continued speaking.

The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill on second reading.

Pursuant to Rule 7.7 the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Askins                 Bailey
Brown, G.              Brown, H.              Cain
Cato                   Cooper                 Cotty
Cromer                 Dantzler               Easterday
Elliott                Fair                   Fleming
Gamble                 Hallman                Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Herdklotz
Hutson                 Jaskwhich              Keegan
Kelley                 Keyserling             Kinon
Kirsh                  Klauber                Knotts
Koon                   Lanford                Law
Limbaugh               Limehouse              Littlejohn
Marchbanks             Mason                  McAbee
McCraw                 McTeer                 Meacham
Neilson                Phillips               Quinn
Rice                   Richardson             Riser
Robinson               Sandifer               Seithel
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Shissias
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Spearman               Stille                 Stoddard
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waldrop
Walker                 Wilder                 Wilkes
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Wofford
Worley                 Wright                 Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Baxley                 Beatty
Breeland               Brown, J.              Canty
Cave                   Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Delleney               Govan                  Harris, J.
Howard                 Jennings               Lloyd
McMahand               Moody-Lawrence         Neal
Rogers                 Scott                  Whipper, L.
Whipper, S.            White                  Williams

So, the Bill was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3237 -- Reps. Jennings and Baxley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 14-1-215, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO RETIRED JUDGES OR JUSTICES BEING ASSIGNED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO PRESIDE IN CERTAIN COURTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO FURTHER SCREENING OF ANY JUDGE, RATHER THAN JUST JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS BEING ASSIGNED TO SIT ON SUCH COURTS, IS REQUIRED UNTIL THE TERM OF THAT JUDGE WOULD HAVE EXPIRED IF HE RETIRED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF HIS THEN CURRENT TERM.

Rep. D. SMITH explained the Bill.

Rep. TUCKER spoke against the Bill.

Rep. JENNINGS spoke in favor of the Bill.

Rep. TUCKER spoke against the Bill.

Rep. D. SMITH spoke in favor of the Bill.

Rep. TUCKER moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill.

Rep. HARRISON moved to table the motion, which was agreed to by a division vote of 46 to 16.

The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill on second reading.

Pursuant to Rule 7.7 the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Askins                 Bailey
Baxley                 Breeland               Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Cain
Carnell                Cato                   Cave
Chamblee               Clyburn                Cotty
Cromer                 Dantzler               Easterday
Fair                   Felder                 Fleming
Gamble                 Govan                  Harris, J.
Harrison               Harvin                 Herdklotz
Hines                  Howard                 Huff
Hutson                 Jaskwhich              Jennings
Keegan                 Kelley                 Kinon
Klauber                Knotts                 Koon
Lanford                Law                    Limbaugh
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Marchbanks
McAbee                 McCraw                 McKay
McMahand               McTeer                 Meacham
Neal                   Phillips               Quinn
Rice                   Richardson             Riser
Robinson               Rogers                 Scott
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Shissias
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Spearman               Stoddard               Tripp
Trotter                Waldrop                Walker
Wells                  Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.
Wilder                 Wilkins                Williams
Worley                 Young, A.              Young, J.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Brown, T.              Cooper                 Elliott
Fulmer                 Hallman                Harrell
Kirsh                  Limehouse              Moody-Lawrence
Seithel                Stille                 Townsend
Tucker                 Witherspoon

So, the Bill was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3446 -- Rep. Sharpe: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 46-45-70 SO AS TO PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LOCATION OF AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES AND AGRICULTURAL WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS; TO AMEND SECTION 46-45-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS ARE NOT NUISANCES, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE FACILITY OR OPERATION MUST BE IN OPERATION FOR ONE YEAR OR MORE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 46-45-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LOCAL ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH RELATED PERMITS MUST NOT BE SUSPENDED, DENIED, OR REVOKED.

The Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\PFM\7326BDW.95).

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:

/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain unless protected from flooding.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least three hundred feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses."

SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.     (A)     No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation.

(B)     No proposed agricultural facility or operation may be deemed to be a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation on property unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses."

SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city."

SECTION     4.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. RISER explained the amendment.

Rep. NEAL spoke against the amendment.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. G. BROWN a temporary leave of absence.

Rep. NEAL continued speaking.

Rep. SHARPE moved that the House recede until 2:00 P.M., which was adopted.

Further proceedings were interrupted by the House receding, the pending question being consideration of Amendment No. 1.

At 2:00 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.

The question of a quorum was raised. A quorum was later present.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. ASKINS a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. BAXLEY a temporary leave of absence.

The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., May 3, 1995
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has confirmed the Governor's appointment of:

Initial Appointment, Charleston County Master-in-Equity, with term to commence December 24, 1992, and to expire December 24, 1998:

The Honorable Roger M. Young, 8121 Greenridge Road, North Charleston, S.C. 29406 VICE Louis Condon

Very respectfully,
President

Received as information.

Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of Amendment No. 1.

H. 3446 -- Rep. Sharpe: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 46-45-70 SO AS TO PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LOCATION OF AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES AND AGRICULTURAL WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS; TO AMEND SECTION 46-45-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS ARE NOT NUISANCES, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE FACILITY OR OPERATION MUST BE IN OPERATION FOR ONE YEAR OR MORE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 46-45-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LOCAL ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH RELATED PERMITS MUST NOT BE SUSPENDED, DENIED, OR REVOKED.

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 1, by the Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs.

Rep. NEAL spoke against the amendment.

Rep. WALDROP spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. G. BROWN spoke against the amendment.

Rep. NEAL moved to table the Bill.

Rep. ROBINSON demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Anderson               Breeland               Brown, J.
Brown, T.              Cain                   Canty
Cave                   Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cromer                 Hallman                Harrell
Harris, J.             Herdklotz              Hines
Jaskwhich              Jennings               Kennedy
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Limbaugh
Lloyd                  Martin                 McMahand
McTeer                 Moody-Lawrence         Neal
Richardson             Rogers                 Shissias
Stille                 Thomas                 Tucker
Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allison                Bailey                 Boan
Carnell                Cato                   Chamblee
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Easterday
Fair                   Fleming                Fulmer
Gamble                 Haskins                Hodges
Huff                   Hutson                 Keegan
Kelley                 Kinon                  Knotts
Koon                   Lanford                Law
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Marchbanks
Mason                  McCraw                 McKay
Meacham                Neilson                Phillips
Quinn                  Rice                   Riser
Robinson               Sandifer               Seithel
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Simrill
Smith, D.              Smith, R.              Spearman
Stoddard               Tripp                  Trotter
Vaughn                 Waldrop                Walker
Wells                  Wilder                 Wilkins
Witherspoon            Wofford                Worley
Wright                 Young, A.              Young, J.

So, the House refused to table the Bill.

Rep. NEAL moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill.

Rep. RISER moved to table the motion.

Rep. SHARPE demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Bailey                 Boan
Brown, G.              Brown, H.              Carnell
Cato                   Chamblee               Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Easterday              Fair
Fleming                Fulmer                 Gamble
Harrell                Harrison               Haskins
Huff                   Hutson                 Jennings
Keegan                 Kelley                 Kinon
Knotts                 Koon                   Lanford
Law                    Limehouse              Marchbanks
Martin                 Mason                  McCraw
McKay                  Meacham                Neilson
Phillips               Quinn                  Rice
Riser                  Robinson               Sandifer
Seithel                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Spearman               Stoddard               Tripp
Trotter                Vaughn                 Waldrop
Walker                 Wells                  Wilder
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Wofford
Young, A.              Young, J.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Breeland               Brown, J.
Brown, T.              Byrd                   Cain
Canty                  Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cromer                 Govan                  Hallman
Harris, J.             Herdklotz              Hines
Hodges                 Jaskwhich              Kennedy
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Limbaugh
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  McTeer
Moody-Lawrence         Neal                   Rogers
Scott                  Shissias               Stille
Thomas                 Tucker                 Whipper, L.
Whipper, S.            Wright

So, the motion to adjourn debate was tabled.

The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. NEAL proposed the following Amendment No. 2, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding Section 5 to read as follows:

/SECTION     5.     Chapter 45, Title 46 of the 1976 Code, is amended by adding:

"Section     46-45-70.     (A)     This section shall be known as the Neighborhood Security Section and for purposes of this section, the definitions set out in 47-20-10 will apply.

(B)     The General Assembly recognizes the paramount right of citizens to be safe in their homes and neighborhoods. Threats to personal safety, health, and security frequently result from incompatible development in neighborhoods. It is the intent of the General Assembly to maintain the rights of citizens to be safe and secure in their homes and neighborhoods. South Carolina recognizes that when property owners are not safe and secure in their homes, property values decrease. It is the intent of this Act to give property owners a means to protect the safety and security of homes and neighborhoods by creating a private cause of action against harmful development which occurs as a result a mediation agreement or adjustment or permit granted enforcing the requirements of Section 47-20-10 of the 1976 Code, as amended.

(C)     Persons or corporations to whom development orders are issued shall be responsible for ensuring that no improvements of actions occur on the property for which the development order is issued which could harm property owners in adjoining neighborhoods. If the property owner in an adjoining neighborhood has reason to believe that a reduction in the fair market value of his property has occurred as a result of a development issued under the requirements of Section 47-20-10 of the 1976 Code, as amended, the property owner shall have a cause of action against the developer to whom the development order is issued. The burden of showing no diminution in value is on the person receiving the development permit under the requirements of Section 47-20-10. Remedies shall include monetary compensation, court costs and attorney's fees paid to the person whose neighboring property has been harmed by the person or corporation to whom the development order is issued. Compensation shall be an amount equal to the difference between fair market value of the harmed property before and after the development order has been issued or adjusted."/

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. ROBINSON raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 2 was out of order as it was not germane in that it dealt with neighborhood security and the Bill dealt with agricultural facilities.

Rep. NEAL argued contra the Point.

The SPEAKER stated that it was a remedy to homeowners and it was germane and he overruled the Point of Order.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment.

Rep. NEAL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Brown, H.              Carnell
Cato                   Chamblee               Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Easterday              Fair
Fleming                Fulmer                 Gamble
Harrell                Harrison               Haskins
Hutson                 Keegan                 Kelley
Kinon                  Koon                   Lanford
Limehouse              Marchbanks             Mason
McAbee                 McCraw                 McKay
McTeer                 Meacham                Quinn
Rice                   Richardson             Riser
Robinson               Sandifer               Sharpe
Sheheen                Simrill                Smith, R.
Spearman               Stoddard               Tripp
Trotter                Vaughn                 Waldrop
Wells                  Wilder                 Wilkins
Witherspoon            Wofford                Young, J.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Boan                   Breeland
Brown, G.              Brown, J.              Brown, T.
Byrd                   Canty                  Cave
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Cromer
Govan                  Hallman                Harris, J.
Herdklotz              Hines                  Hodges
Howard                 Jaskwhich              Jennings
Kennedy                Keyserling             Kirsh
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Neilson                Rogers
Scott                  Shissias               Tucker
Walker                 Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.
Wright

So, the amendment was tabled.

Reps. CAVE and NEAL proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\PFM\7347BDW.95), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 46-45-60, page 3446-3, by striking lines 8 - 11 and inserting:

/operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. CAVE explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted by a division vote of 55 to 20.

Reps. NEAL and COTTY proposed the following Amendment No. 4 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\PFM\7374BDW.95), which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, SECTION 1, page 3446-2, after line 23 by inserting:

/Section 47-20-30.     This chapter does not affect local ordinances relating to agricultural zoning restrictions existing on the effective date of this chapter./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE 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                Brown, H.              Carnell
Cato                   Chamblee               Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Easterday
Felder                 Fleming                Fulmer
Gamble                 Hallman                Harrell
Haskins                Huff                   Jennings
Keegan                 Kelley                 Kinon
Knotts                 Koon                   Lanford
Law                    Limehouse              Marchbanks
Mason                  McAbee                 McCraw
McKay                  Meacham                Quinn
Rice                   Riser                  Robinson
Sandifer               Seithel                Sharpe
Sheheen                Smith, R.              Spearman
Tripp                  Trotter                Vaughn
Waldrop                Walker                 Wells
Wilder                 Wilkins                Williams
Witherspoon            Wofford                Worley
Young, A.              Young, J.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Boan                   Breeland
Brown, G.              Brown, J.              Brown, T.
Byrd                   Cain                   Canty
Cave                   Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cooper                 Cotty                  Cromer
Fair                   Govan                  Harris, J.
Harrison               Herdklotz              Hines
Hodges                 Howard                 Jaskwhich
Kennedy                Keyserling             Kirsh
Limbaugh               Littlejohn             Lloyd
Martin                 McTeer                 Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Neilson                Richardson
Rogers                 Scott                  Shissias
Simrill                Stille                 Thomas
Townsend               Tucker                 Whipper, L.
Whipper, S.            White                  Wilkes

So, the amendment was tabled.

Rep. NEAL proposed the following Amendment No. 5 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\GJK\21779SD.95), which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding a new Section 47-20-40 at the end of Chapter 20 of Title 47 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 1 to read:

/"Section 47-20-40.     For purposes of this chapter and other applicable provisions of law, a county or municipality for a period of six months after the effective date of this section may amend existing ordinances or enact new ordinances to stipulate what areas within its jurisdiction are compatible with a confined livestock or poultry facility and as a result shall be permitted therein."/

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, by adding a new SECTION to be appropriately numbered to read:

/SECTION     ____.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 46-45-75.     For purposes of Sections 46-45-30 and 46-45-60, a county or municipality for a period of six months after the effective date of this section may amend existing ordinances or enact new ordinances to stipulate what areas within its jurisdiction are compatible with an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation and as a result shall be permitted therein."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend totals and title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment.

Rep. NEAL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Boan                   Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Carnell                Cato
Chamblee               Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Easterday              Felder                 Fleming
Fulmer                 Gamble                 Hallman
Harrell                Harrison               Huff
Hutson                 Jennings               Keegan
Kelley                 Kinon                  Knotts
Koon                   Lanford                Law
Limehouse              Marchbanks             Mason
McAbee                 McCraw                 McKay
Meacham                Quinn                  Rice
Riser                  Robinson               Sandifer
Seithel                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Spearman               Stoddard               Tripp
Trotter                Vaughn                 Waldrop
Walker                 Wells                  Wilder
Wilkes                 Wilkins                Witherspoon
Wofford                Worley                 Wright
Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Breeland               Brown, J.
Brown, T.              Byrd                   Cain
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Cromer
Fair                   Govan                  Harris, J.
Herdklotz              Hines                  Hodges
Howard                 Jaskwhich              Keyserling
Kirsh                  Lloyd                  Martin
McMahand               McTeer                 Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Neilson                Richardson
Rogers                 Scott                  Shissias
Stille                 Thomas                 Townsend
Tucker                 Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.
White                  Williams

So, the amendment was tabled.

Reps. NEAL and CAVE proposed the following Amendment No. 6 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\GJK\21783SD.95), which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding a new Section 47-20-40 at the end of Chapter 20 of Title 47 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 1 to read:

/"Section 47-20-40.     For purposes of this chapter and other applicable provisions of law, a county or municipality for a period of three months after the effective date of this section may amend existing ordinances or enact new ordinances to stipulate what areas within its jurisdiction are compatible with a confined livestock or poultry facility and as a result shall be permitted therein."/

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, by adding a new SECTION to be appropriately numbered to read:

/SECTION     ____.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 46-45-75.     For purposes of Sections 46-45-30 and 46-45-60, a county or municipality for a period of six months after the effective date of this section may amend existing ordinances or enact new ordinances to stipulate what areas within its jurisdiction are compatible with an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation and as a result shall be permitted therein."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend totals and title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment.

Rep. CROMER demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.

The amendment was then tabled by a division vote of 50 to 30.

Rep. NEAL proposed the following Amendment No. 7 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\GJK\21781SD.95), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding a new Section 47-20-30 at the end of Chapter 20 of Title 47 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 1 to read:

/"Section 47-20-30.     All zoning ordinances of a county or municipality in existence on the effective date of this chapter that apply to production areas, waste areas, and waste disposal areas of confined livestock or poultry facilities, except any ordinances which declare them to be a nuisance per se and as a result unlawful throughout the county, shall continue in full force and effect."/

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, by adding a new SECTION to be appropriately numbered to read:

SECTION     ____.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

/"Section 46-45-65.     All zoning ordinances of a county or municipality in existence on the effective date of this section that apply to agricultural facilities and agricultural operations except any ordinances which declare them to be a nuisance per se and as a result unlawful throughout the county, shall continue in full force and effect."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend totals and title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted by a division vote of 42 to 32.

Reps. ROGERS, HODGES and NEAL proposed the following Amendment No. 8, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain unless protected from flooding.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least three hundred feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses."

Section 47-20-30.     The requirements contained in this chapter are intended to serve as minimum guidelines for state and local permits. Local governments may, upon approval by the governing body, adopt standards and requirements that are stricter than those contained in this chapter."

SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.     (A)     No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation.

(B)     Once an established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility has been permitted by a local governmental entity, that permit cannot be subsequently revoked after sixty days, except in cases where a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation."

SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. Any ordinance of a unit of local government requiring that proposed agricultural facilities or operations obtain a permit must ensure that the review and permit period does not exceed forty-five days. During the local review process, comments on any proposed agricultural facility or operation will only be taken from persons residing within a two-mile radius measured from the property line of the proposed facility or operation. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city."

SECTION     4.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. ROGERS explained the amendment.

Rep. ROGERS continued speaking.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment.

Rep. ROGERS demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Bailey                 Brown, H.
Carnell                Cato                   Chamblee
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Easterday
Fair                   Fleming                Fulmer
Gamble                 Harrell                Harrison
Haskins                Huff                   Keegan
Kelley                 Kinon                  Knotts
Koon                   Lanford                Law
Limehouse              Marchbanks             Mason
McAbee                 McCraw                 McKay
Meacham                Neilson                Phillips
Quinn                  Rice                   Riser
Robinson               Sandifer               Seithel
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Simrill
Smith, D.              Spearman               Stoddard
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Vaughn                 Waldrop                Walker
Wells                  Wilder                 Wilkins
Witherspoon            Wofford                Worley
Wright                 Young, A.              Young, J.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Breeland               Byrd
Cain                   Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cromer                 Govan                  Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Herdklotz
Hines                  Hodges                 Howard
Jaskwhich              Jennings               Kennedy
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Limbaugh
Lloyd                  Martin                 McTeer
Moody-Lawrence         Neal                   Richardson
Rogers                 Scott                  Shissias
Thomas                 Tucker                 Whipper, L.
Whipper, S.            White                  Wilkes

So, the amendment was tabled.

The SPEAKER granted Reps. DELLENEY, D. SMITH, CANTY and THOMAS a leave of the House due to the Judicial Screening Committee meeting.

Reps. HODGES and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 9, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public roads;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses."

SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.     No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation."

SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city."

SECTION     4.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment.

Rep. HODGES demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Bailey                 Brown, H.
Carnell                Cato                   Chamblee
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Easterday              Fair                   Felder
Fleming                Fulmer                 Gamble
Hallman                Harrell                Haskins
Keegan                 Kelley                 Kinon
Knotts                 Koon                   Lanford
Limbaugh               Limehouse              Mason
McAbee                 McCraw                 McKay
Meacham                Phillips               Quinn
Rice                   Riser                  Robinson
Sandifer               Seithel                Sharpe
Sheheen                Simrill                Smith, R.
Spearman               Stoddard               Tripp
Trotter                Vaughn                 Waldrop
Walker                 Wells                  Wilkins
Witherspoon            Wofford                Wright
Young, A.              Young, J.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Boan                   Breeland               Brown, G.
Brown, J.              Byrd                   Cain
Cave                   Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cromer                 Govan                  Harris, J.
Herdklotz              Hines                  Hodges
Howard                 Jennings               Kennedy
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Martin                 McMahand
McTeer                 Moody-Lawrence         Neal
Neilson                Richardson             Rogers
Scott                  Shissias               Stille
Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.            Wilder
Wilkes

So, the amendment was tabled.

Rep. SHARPE moved immediate cloture on the entire matter, which was agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Please let the record reflect that I voiced a loud "No" on invoking cloture on H. 3446.

Rep. G. BROWN

Rep. HASKINS move to reconsider the vote whereby Amendment No. 7 was adopted.

Rep. McTEER raised the Point of Order that the motion to reconsider the vote whereby Amendment No. 7 was adopted was out of order under Rule 8.6 which states that after immediate cloture the only amendments that can be considered are the ones on the desk and that this amendment would no longer be on the desk.

Rep. HASKINS stated that any amendments that had been adopted were still on the desk until the Bill was no longer in the possession of the House and he further pointed out that the Point of Order came too late as the roll call had already been ordered.

Rep. SHEHEEN stated that the amendment was still in the possession of the body and that it could be reconsidered.

The SPEAKER stated that you could still reconsider a vote after immediate cloture and he overruled the Point of Order.

Rep. ROGERS moved to table the motion and demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows;

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Anderson               Breeland               Byrd
Cave                   Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cromer                 Fair                   Govan
Harris, J.             Howard                 Jennings
Kennedy                Keyserling             Kirsh
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  McMahand
McTeer                 Meacham                Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Richardson             Rogers
Scott                  Simrill                Whipper, L.
Whipper, S.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allison                Bailey                 Brown, H.
Carnell                Cato                   Chamblee
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Easterday              Felder
Fulmer                 Gamble                 Hallman
Harrell                Harrison               Haskins
Huff                   Keegan                 Kelley
Kinon                  Knotts                 Koon
Law                    Limbaugh               Limehouse
Marchbanks             Martin                 Mason
McAbee                 McCraw                 McKay
Neilson                Phillips               Quinn
Rice                   Riser                  Robinson
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Shissias
Smith, R.              Spearman               Stoddard
Tripp                  Trotter                Tucker
Vaughn                 Waldrop                Wells
Wilder                 Wilkins                Witherspoon
Wofford                Young, J.

So, the House refused to table the motion to reconsider.

The question then recurred to the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.

Rep. ROGERS moved to adjourn debate upon the amendment, which was adopted.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. J. YOUNG a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

Reps. NEAL, ROGERS and HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 10, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain unless protected from flooding.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least three hundred feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses."

SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.     (A)     No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation."

SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city."

SECTION     4.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. ROGERS, NEAL and HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 11, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting Section 3 and inserting:

/SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60. (A)     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city.

(B) All ordinances adopted by a county or municipal governing body prior to June 30, 1997, are exempted from the provisions of this chapter."/

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. COBB-HUNTER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. ROGERS, NEAL and HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 12 , which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting the following:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain unless protected from flooding.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least three hundred feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses.

Section 47-20-30.     Any agricultural facility or operation that is permitted pursuant to this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must post conspicuous signs visible from all public roads abutting the site. The signs must be designed to notify all persons of the nature and presence of the operation or facility, and must display a phone number for complaints to DHEC."

SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.     (A)     No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation.

(B)     No proposed agricultural facility or operation may be deemed to be a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation on property unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses."

/SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     (A)An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city.

(B) All ordinances adopted by a county or municipal governing body prior to June 30, 1997, are exempted form the provisions of this chapter."

SECTION     4.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. COBB-HUNTER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. NEAL, ROGERS and HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 13, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain unless protected from flooding.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least three hundred feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses."

Section 47-20-30.     Any agricultural facility or operation that is permitted pursuant to this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must post conspicuous signs visible from all public roads abutting the site. The signs must be designed to notify all persons of the nature and presence of the operation or facility, and must display a phone number for complaints to DHEC."

SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.         No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation."

SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city.

SECTION     4.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment.

Rep. NEAL demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.

The amendment was then tabled by a division vote of 40 to 18.

Rep. NEAL proposed the following Amendment No. 14, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding the following to Section 1, to read as follows:

/"Section 47-20-30. The party or person proposing an agricultural facility or operation and seeking a permit pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must certify to DHEC that:

(1) All property owners within a five mile radius of the site have been notified of the proposed facility; and

(2) That all members of the legislative delegation representing the county where the proposed facility or operation is to be located have been notified of the pending DHEC permit."/

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 15, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding the following to SECTION 1, to read as follows:

/"Section 47-20-30.         Any proposed agricultural facility or operation permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site shall only be located in an area of the State with a population density of less than ten persons per square mile."/

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. G. BROWN a temporary leave of absence.

Rep. HODGES proposed the following Amendment No.16, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain unless protected from flooding.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least three hundred feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses."

SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 422 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.     No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation.

SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     (A) An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city.

(B)     All ordinances adopted by a county or municipal governing body prior to June 30, 1997, are exempted from the provision of this chapter."/

SECTION     4.     This Act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

/Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. NEAL proposed the following Amendment No.17, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding the following subsection to SECTION 1; and by striking SECTION 3 and inserting the following:

I.     Subsection B.is added to SECTION 1 of the bill, as and if amended, to read:
/B.     The 1976 Code is further amended as follows:

"Section 47-20-30.     Any proposed agricultural facility or operation permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of government with jurisdiction over the site shall only be located in an area of the state with a population density of les than ten persons per square mile."/

II.     Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 3 and inserting the following:

/SECTION 3. Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     (A) An ordinance of a unit of Local Government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by State or Federal La are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a Local Ordinance. The provisions of this section do not apply wherever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply wherever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city.

(B)     All ordinances adopted by a county or municipal governing body prior to June 30, 1997, are exempted from the provisions of this Chapter."/

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. HODGES and NEAL proposed the following Amendment No. 18, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding subsection B to SECTION 1, to read as follows:
/B.     The 1976 Code is further amended by adding:

"Section 47-20-30.     (A)     Any governmental agency commissioned to enforced the requirements set forth in this chapter, including, but not limited to DHEC, must enforce the requirements strictly. No variances from the requirements set forth in this chapter may be granted.

(B) Prior to the granting of a permit to confined livestock and poultry facilities, enforcing the requirements set forth in this chapter, any governmental agency commissioned to enforce the requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to DHEC, must hold a public hearing in the county where the facility requesting the permit is to be located. Public notice of the hearing must give thirty days in advance and be advertised in a newspaper of general, audited circulation in the county where the hearing is held. Members of the Legislative Delegation representing the county where the permit is being sought must be invited to the public hearing."/

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. NEAL and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 19, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 3 and inserting:

/SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     (A) An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. However, this prohibition does not apply to ordinances of a unit of local government that require the installation of bufferyards and screening, and greater setback requirements that provided for in Title 47, Chapter 20 of the Code. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city./

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. WILKES a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

Rep. HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 20, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 1 and inserting the following:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public roads;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses.

Section 47-20-30.     Any agricultural facility or operation that is permitted pursuant to this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must post conspicuous signs visible from all public roads abutting the site. The signs must be designed to notify all persons of the nature and presence of the operation or facility, and must display a phone number for complaints to DHEC.

Section 47-20-40.     The party or person proposing an agricultural facility or operation and seeking a permit pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must certify to DHEC that:

(1)     All property owners within a five mile radius of the site have been notified of the proposed facility; and

(2)     that all members of the legislative delegation representing the county where the proposed facility or operation is to be located have been notified of the pending DHEC permit.

Section 47-20-50.     Any proposed agricultural facility or operation permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site shall only be located in an area of the State with a population density of less than ten persons per square mile."/

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. ROGERS and HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 21, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 1 and inserting the following:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public roads;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses.

Section 47-20-30.     Any agricultural facility or operation that is permitted pursuant to this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must post conspicuous signs visible from all public roads abutting the site. The signs must be designed to notify all persons of the nature and presence of the operation or facility, and must display a phone number for complaints to DHEC.

Section 47-20-40.     (A)     Any governmental agency commissioned to enforce the requirements set forth in the Chapter, including, but not limited to DHEC, must enforce the requirements strictly. No variances from the requirements set forth in this Chapter may be granted.

(B)     Prior to the granting of a permit to confined livestock and poultry facilities, enforcing the requirements set forth in the Chapter, any governmental agency commissioned to enforce the requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to DHEC, must hold a public hearing in the county where the facility requesting the permit is to be located. Public notice of the hearing must give thirty days in advance and be advertised in a newspaper of general, audited circulation in the county where the hearing is held. Members of the legislative delegation representing the county where the permit is being sought must be invited to the public hearing."/

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. ROGERS moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 22, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding the following to the end of SECTION 1, to read as follows:

/B.     The 1976 Code is further amended by adding:

"Section 47-20-30.     Any agricultural facility or operation that is permitted pursuant to this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must post conspicuous signs visible from all public roads abutting the site. The signs must be designed to notify all persons of the nature and presence of the operation or facility, and must display a phone number for complaints to DHEC.

Section 47-20-40.     (A)     Any governmental agency commissioned to enforce the requirements set forth in the Chapter, including, but not limited to DHEC, must enforce the requirements strictly. No variances from the requirements set forth in this Chapter may be granted.

(B)     Prior to the granting of a permit to confined livestock and poultry facilities, enforcing the requirements set forth in the Chapter, any governmental agency commissioned to enforce the requirements of the chapter, including, but not limited to DHEC, must hold a public hearing in the county where the facility requesting the permit is to be located. Public notice of the hearing must give thirty days in advance and be advertised in a newspaper of general, audited circulation in the county where the hearing is held. Members of the legislative delegation representing the county where the permit is being sought must be invited to the public hearing."/

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. ROGERS moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. ROGERS and HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 23, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 1 and inserting the following:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain unless protected from flooding.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least three hundred feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses."

Section 47-20-30.     Any agricultural facility or operation that is permitted pursuant to this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must post conspicuous signs visible from all public roads abutting the site. The signs must be designed to notify all persons of the nature and presence of the operation or facility, and must display a phone number for complaints to DHEC.

Section 47-20-40. The party or person proposing an agricultural facility or operation and seeking a permit pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must certify to DHEC that:

(1) All property owners within a five mile radius of the site have been notified of the proposed facility; and

(2) That all members of the legislative delegation representing the county where the proposed facility or operation is to be located have been notified of the pending DHEC permit.

Section 47-20-50. Any proposed agricultural facility or operation permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site shall only be located in an area of the State with a population density of less than ten persons per square mile.

Section 47-20-60. (A) Any governmental agency commissioned to enforce the requirements set forth in this Chapter, including, but not limited to DHEC, must enforce the requirements strictly. No variances from the requirements set forth in this Chapter may be granted.

(B) Prior to the granting of a permit to confined livestock and poultry facilities, enforcing the requirements set forth in this Chapter, any governmental agency commissioned to enforce the requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to DHEC, must hold a public hearing in the county where the facility requesting the permit is to be located. Public notice of the hearing must give thirty days in advance and be advertised in a newspaper of general, audited circulation in the county where the hearing is held. Members of the legislative delegation representing the county where the permit is being sought must be invited to the public hearing."/

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. ROGERS moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. HODGES and NEAL proposed the following Amendment No. 24, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting the following:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain unless protected from flooding.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least three hundred feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses."

"Section 47-20-30.     Any agricultural facility or operation that is permitted pursuant to this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must post conspicuous signs visible from all public roads abutting the site. The signs must be designed to notify all persons of the nature and presence of the operation or facility, and must display a phone number for complaints to DHEC.

Section 47-20-40.     The party or person proposing an agricultural facility or operation and seeking a permit pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must certify to DHEC that:

(1)     all property owners within a five mile radius of the site have been notified of the proposed facility; and

(2)     that all members of the legislative delegation representing the county where the proposed facility or operation is to be located have been notified of the pending DHEC permit."

SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.     (A)     No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation.

(B)     No proposed agricultural facility or operation may be deemed to be a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation on property unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses."

/SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     (A)     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city.

(B)     All ordinances adopted by a county or municipal governing body prior to June 30, 1997, are exempted from the provisions of this chapter."

SECTION     4.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. ROGERS and HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 25, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding subsection B to SECTION 1, to read as follows; and by deleting SECTION 3 and inserting:
/(B)     The 1976 Code, is further amended by adding:

"Section 47-20-30.     (A)     Any governmental agency commissioned to enforce the requirements set forth in this chapter, including, but not limited to DHEC, must enforce the requirements strictly. No variances from the requirements set forth in this chapter may be granted.

(B)     Prior to the granting of a permit to confined livestock and poultry facilities, enforcing the requirements set forth in this chapter, any governmental agency commissioned to enforce the requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to DHEC, must hold a public hearing in the county where the facility requesting the permit is to be located. Public notice of the hearing must given thirty days in advance and be advertised in a newspaper or general, audited circulation in the county where the hearing is held. Members of the legislative delegation representing the county where the permit is being sought must be invited to the public hearing."

SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. However, this prohibition does not apply to ordinances of a unit or local government that require the installation of bufferyards and screening, and greater setback requirements than provided for in Title 47, Chapter 20 of the Code. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city."/

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. ROGERS moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. HODGES and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 26, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain unless protected from flooding.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least three hundred feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses.

Section 47-20-30.     Any proposed agricultural facility or operation permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site shall only be located in an area of the State with a population density of less than ten persons per square mile."

SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.     (A)     No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation.

SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     (A)     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city.

(B)All ordinances adopted by a county or municipal government body prior to June 30, 1997, are exempted from the provisions of this chapter."

SECTION     4.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES explained the amendment.

Rep. ROBINSON moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 27, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 1 and inserting:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses."/

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES explained the amendment.

Rep. WITHERSPOON moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. NEAL and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 28, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 2 and inserting:
/SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.     (A)     No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation."/

Renumber sections and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. HODGES and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 29, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 3 and inserting:
/SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city."/

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to by a division vote of 47 to 28.

Reps. ROGERS and HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 30, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTIONS 1 and 3 and inserting:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of

Rep. ROGERS explained the amendment.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. DAVENPORT a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment.

Rep. ROGERS demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Bailey                 Brown, H.
Carnell                Cato                   Chamblee
Cotty                  Dantzler               Delleney
Easterday              Fair                   Fleming
Fulmer                 Gamble                 Harrell
Harrison               Haskins                Hutson
Kelley                 Kinon                  Knotts
Koon                   Law                    Limehouse
Mason                  McAbee                 McCraw
McKay                  Meacham                Quinn
Rice                   Riser                  Robinson
Sandifer               Seithel                Sharpe
Sheheen                Simrill                Smith, D.
Smith, R.              Spearman               Stoddard
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Vaughn                 Waldrop                Walker
Wells                  Wilder                 Wilkins
Witherspoon            Wofford                Worley
Wright                 Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Baxley                 Breeland
Brown, G.              Byrd                   Cain
Canty                  Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cromer                 Govan                  Harris, J.
Harvin                 Herdklotz              Hines
Hodges                 Howard                 Jennings
Kennedy                Keyserling             Lanford
Limbaugh               Littlejohn             Lloyd
Martin                 Moody-Lawrence         Neal
Neilson                Richardson             Rogers
Scott                  Shissias               Stille
Thomas                 Tucker                 Whipper, L.
Whipper, S.            White                  Williams

So, the amendment was tabled.

Rep. ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 31, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding the following to SECTION 1 and by deleting SECTION 3 and inserting:

/I.     Add the following to the end of SECTION 1:

"Section 47-20-30.     Any proposed agricultural facility or operation permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site shall only be located in an area of the State with a population density of less than ten person per square mile."

II.     Delete SECTION 3 and insert:

SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in and derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city.

(B)     All ordinances adopted by a county or municipal governing body prior to June 30, 1977, are exempted from the provisions of this chapter."/

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. ROGERS explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to by a division vote of 42 to 25.

Rep. HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 32, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public roads;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item,

Rep. HODGES explained the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to by a division vote of 33 to 15.

Reps. HODGES, ROGERS and NEAL proposed the following Amendment No. 33, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 1 and inserting:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public roads;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses.

Section 47-20-30.     Any proposed agricultural facility or operation permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site shall only be located in an area of the State with a population density of less than ten person per square mile."/

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. NEAL, HODGES and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 34, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 1 and inserting:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public roads;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses.

Section 47-20-30.     Any agricultural facility or operation that is permitted pursuant to this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must post conspicuous signs visible from all public roads abutting the site. The signs must be designed to notify all persons of the nature and presence of the operation or facility, and must display a phone number for complaints to DHEC."/

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. NEAL and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 35, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 2 and inserting:

/SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.     (A)     No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation.

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. NEAL, ROGERS and HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 36, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting the following:
/SECTION 1.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 47-20-10.     Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8)     out of the one-hundred-year flood plain unless protected from flooding.

Section 47-20-20.     Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1)     at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2)     at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3)     at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4)     at least two hundred feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, 'residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5)     at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6)     at least three hundred feet from a public place. As used in this item, 'public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7)     when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses.

Section 47-20-30.     Any agricultural facility or operation that is permitted pursuant to this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must post conspicuous signs visible from all public roads abutting the site. The signs must be designed to notify all persons of the nature and presence of the operation or facility, and must display a phone number for complaints to DHEC."

SECTION     2.     Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30.     (A)     No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation.

(B)     No proposed agricultural facility or operation may be deemed to be a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation on property unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses."

/SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60.     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. However, the prohibition does not apply to ordinances of a unit of local government that require the installation of bufferyards and screening. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city."

SECTION     4.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment.

Rep. NEAL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Bailey                 Boan
Brown, H.              Carnell                Chamblee
Cotty                  Dantzler               Delleney
Easterday              Fair                   Fleming
Fulmer                 Gamble                 Harrell
Harrison               Keegan                 Kelley
Kinon                  Knotts                 Koon
Law                    Limehouse              Marchbanks
Mason                  McAbee                 McCraw
Meacham                Phillips               Quinn
Rice                   Riser                  Robinson
Seithel                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Spearman               Stoddard               Tripp
Trotter                Vaughn                 Waldrop
Walker                 Wells                  Wilder
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Wofford
Worley                 Wright                 Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Baxley                 Breeland
Brown, G.              Brown, J.              Byrd
Cain                   Cobb-Hunter            Cooper
Cromer                 Govan                  Hallman
Harris, J.             Harvin                 Herdklotz
Hines                  Hodges                 Howard
Hutson                 Jennings               Kennedy
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Lanford
Limbaugh               Littlejohn             Lloyd
McMahand               McTeer                 Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Neilson                Richardson
Rogers                 Sandifer               Scott
Shissias               Stille                 Thomas
Tucker                 Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.
Williams

So, the amendment was tabled.

Reps. HODGES, NEAL and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 37, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding the following to SECTION 1, to read as follows; and deleting SECTION 3 and inserting:

/I.     The following is added to SECTION 1:

"Section     47-20-30.     Any proposed agricultural facility or operation permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site shall only be located in an area of the State with a population density of less than ten persons per square mile."

II.     Delete SECTION 3 and insert the following:

SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section     46-45-60.     (A)     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility an nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural usis, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. However, this prohibition does not apply to ordinances of a unit of local government that require the installation of bufferyards and screening, and greater setback requirements than provided for in Title 47, Chapter 20 of the Code. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results form an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city./

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. HODGES and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 38, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 3 and inserting the following:

/SECTION     3.     Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section     46-45-60.     (A)     An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results form the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city.

(B)     The exemption form an ordinance of a unit of local government contained in this section only applies to agricultural facilities or operations that are supplying agricultural products for processing to corporations or entities that have at least ninety-five percent or more South Carolina ownership as certified by the Secretary of State."/

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. RICHARDSON proposed the following Amendment No. 39, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding Section 4 on line 12, page 3, which states that "a County without zoning requirements which has a written appeal process for the Planning Committee of the County, including community input on effects of proposed development shall be exempt from this act. The written appeal process shall be uniform throughout South Carolina for all counties lacking required zoning.

Rep. RICHARDSON explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 7 by Rep. NEAL.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment.

Rep. ROGERS demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey                 Brown, H.              Carnell
Cato                   Chamblee               Dantzler
Delleney               Easterday              Fair
Fleming                Fulmer                 Gamble
Harrell                Haskins                Huff
Keegan                 Kelley                 Kinon
Knotts                 Koon                   Law
Limehouse              Marchbanks             Mason
McAbee                 McCraw                 Meacham
Phillips               Quinn                  Rice
Riser                  Robinson               Seithel
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Smith, D.
Smith, R.              Spearman               Stoddard
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Vaughn                 Waldrop                Walker
Wells                  Wilkins                Witherspoon
Wofford                Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Baxley                 Breeland
Brown, G.              Brown, J.              Byrd
Cain                   Cave                   Cobb-Hunter
Cooper                 Cotty                  Cromer
Govan                  Hallman                Harris, J.
Harvin                 Herdklotz              Hines
Hodges                 Howard                 Hutson
Jennings               Kennedy                Keyserling
Kirsh                  Lanford                Limbaugh
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Martin
McMahand               McTeer                 Neal
Neilson                Richardson             Rogers
Sandifer               Scott                  Shissias
Simrill                Thomas                 Tucker
Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.            White
Wilder                 Wright

So, the amendment was tabled.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. G. BROWN a leave of absence.

Reps. ROGERS and NEAL spoke against the Bill.

The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill on second reading, as amended.

Pursuant to Rule 7.7 the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Bailey                 Brown, H.
Carnell                Cato                   Cave
Chamblee               Clyburn                Cotty
Dantzler               Delleney               Easterday
Fair                   Fleming                Fulmer
Gamble                 Hallman                Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Huff
Hutson                 Keegan                 Kelley
Kennedy                Kinon                  Knotts
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Marchbanks             Mason                  McAbee
McCraw                 Meacham                Phillips
Rice                   Riser                  Robinson
Sandifer               Seithel                Sharpe
Sheheen                Simrill                Smith, D.
Smith, R.              Spearman               Tripp
Trotter                Vaughn                 Waldrop
Walker                 Wells                  Wilder
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Wofford
Wright                 Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Baxley                 Boan
Breeland               Brown, J.              Brown, T.
Byrd                   Cain                   Cobb-Hunter
Cromer                 Govan                  Harris, J.
Herdklotz              Hines                  Howard
Jennings               Keyserling             Kirsh
Limbaugh               Littlejohn             Lloyd
Martin                 McTeer                 Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Neilson                Richardson
Rogers                 Scott                  Shissias
Stille                 Thomas                 Townsend
Tucker                 Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.

So, the Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

Rep. BAXLEY moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. WOFFORD demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Anderson               Baxley                 Boan
Breeland               Byrd                   Carnell
Cave                   Chamblee               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Delleney               Fulmer
Govan                  Hallman                Harvin
Hines                  Howard                 Jennings
Kennedy                Keyserling             Kinon
Kirsh                  Lloyd                  Martin
McAbee                 McCraw                 McMahand
McTeer                 Moody-Lawrence         Neal
Neilson                Phillips               Richardson
Rogers                 Scott                  Sheheen
Spearman               Stille                 Tucker
Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allison                Bailey                 Brown, H.
Cain                   Cato                   Cooper
Cotty                  Cromer                 Dantzler
Easterday              Fair                   Fleming
Gamble                 Harrell                Harrison
Herdklotz              Hodges                 Huff
Hutson                 Keegan                 Kelley
Knotts                 Koon                   Law
Limbaugh               Limehouse              Littlejohn
Marchbanks             Mason                  Meacham
Rice                   Riser                  Robinson
Sandifer               Seithel                Sharpe
Shissias               Simrill                Smith, D.
Smith, R.              Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Vaughn                 Waldrop
Walker                 Wells                  Wilder
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Wofford
Wright                 Young, A.

So, the House refused to adjourn.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3694 -- Reps. Wright, Allison, Bailey, Byrd, Cooper, Fulmer, Harrell, J. Harris, Hodges, Keegan, Kelley, Knotts, Koon, Lanford, Limehouse, Mason, McMahand, Meacham, Phillips, Sharpe, Shissias, Stuart, Townsend, Walker, Wilder, Wofford, Kennedy, Cain and Stille: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-6540, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR AND ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE MANDATORY USE OF SEAT BELTS PROVISION, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT BOTH REQUIRES A VIOLATION NOT TO CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE PER SE OR CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND NOT BE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE IN A CIVIL ACTION.

The Education and Public Works Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\DKA\3868CM.95), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 56-5-6540(B) and inserting:

/(B)     A law enforcement officer may not stop a driver for a violation of this article in the absence of another violation of the motor vehicle laws except when the stop is made in conjunction with a driver's license check or registration check conducted at a checkpoint established to stop all drivers on a certain road for a period of time. A citation for a violation of this article must not be issued without citing the violation that initially caused the officer to effect the enforcement stop./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. WRIGHT explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. G. BROWN proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\PFM\7368BDW.95), which was ruled out of order.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:

/SECTION ___.     The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 56-5-1557.     It is unlawful to transport a mobile home along the highways of this State in excess of ten miles below the posted speed limit except when traveling along a highway with a maximum speed limit of twenty-five miles an hour or less. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two hundred dollars."/

Amend title to conform.

Rep. TOWNSEND raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 2 was out of order as it was not germane in that the bill dealt with seat belts and the amendment dealt with mobile homes.

The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order and ruled the amendment out of order.

The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill, as amended, on second reading.

Pursuant to Rule 7.7 the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Bailey                 Boan
Breeland               Brown, H.              Brown, J.
Brown, T.              Byrd                   Cain
Carnell                Cato                   Cave
Chamblee               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cooper                 Cotty                  Cromer
Dantzler               Delleney               Easterday
Fair                   Fleming                Fulmer
Gamble                 Govan                  Hallman
Harrell                Harris, J.             Harrison
Harvin                 Herdklotz              Hines
Hodges                 Howard                 Hutson
Keegan                 Kelley                 Kennedy
Keyserling             Kinon                  Kirsh
Knotts                 Koon                   Lanford
Law                    Limbaugh               Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Marchbanks
Mason                  McAbee                 McCraw
McMahand               McTeer                 Meacham
Moody-Lawrence         Neal                   Neilson
Phillips               Quinn                  Rice
Richardson             Riser                  Robinson
Sandifer               Scott                  Seithel
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Shissias
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Spearman               Stille                 Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Vaughn
Waldrop                Walker                 Wells
Whipper, L.            Whipper, S.            Wilder
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Wofford
Wright                 Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Baxley                 Jennings               Martin
Thomas

So, the Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3608 -- Reps. Govan, Beatty, Moody-Lawrence and White: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-19-485 SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATING CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES AS "WRECKAGE" OR "SALVAGE" IN A MANNER WHICH SUFFICES TO INFORM THE TRANSFEREE OF SUCH A VEHICLE OF THE VEHICLE'S TRUE CONDITION.

Rep. ASKINS proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\DKA\3915CM.95), which was adopted.

Amend the Committee Report on Labor, Commerce and Industry, as and if amended, Section 56-19-485, SECTION 1, page 3608, by adding at the end:

/Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the owner of a vehicle whose total cost of repair, including all labor and parts, is estimated to be seventy-five percent or more of the fair market value of the vehicle must provide the department an affidavit from the rebuilder indicating the cost of repair along with other data the department may prescribe to obtain a certificate of title. A certificate of title issued for a vehicle described in this paragraph must be annotated to indicate the motor vehicle is designated 'wreckage' or 'salvage' as applicable to the extent necessary to inform the transferee of the exact condition of the vehicle. A wrecked or salvaged out-of-state vehicle or South Carolina registered vehicle may not be registered in this State without this designation, and this designation must be applied to subsequent transfer of the vehicle./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. CATO explained the amendment.

The SPEAKER granted Reps. J. BROWN and SPEARMAN a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

Rep. GOVAN spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. GAMBLE spoke upon the amendment.

Rep. SHARPE raised the Point of Order that the Bill was out of order in compliance with Rule 5.13 in that it did not have a fiscal impact statement attached.

Rep. GAMBLE argued contra the Point in stating that there was no way it would cost the State more money and if anything it would cost the State less because once the title was designated a certain way, it could not change. She further stated that the way it was currently that it could change on numerous occasions and that would cost money.

Rep. ROBINSON stated that it did not affect the expenditure of monies by the State.

The SPEAKER stated that Rule 5.13 stated that each Bill affecting the expenditure of money by the State shall, prior to receiving second reading, have attached to it in writing such comment of the State Auditor as may appear appropriate regarding its effect on the finances of the State and that he did not see where this Bill required that and he overruled the Point of Order.

Rep. GAMBLE continued speaking.

Rep. WALKER moved to table the amendment, which was not agreed to.

The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment, which was agreed to.

The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill, as amended, on second reading.

Pursuant to Rule 7.7 the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison                Anderson               Bailey
Baxley                 Breeland               Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Byrd                   Cain
Carnell                Cato                   Cave
Chamblee               Clyburn                Cotty
Cromer                 Dantzler               Delleney
Easterday              Fair                   Fleming
Fulmer                 Gamble                 Govan
Hallman                Harrell                Harris, J.
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Herdklotz              Hines                  Hodges
Howard                 Huff                   Keegan
Kelley                 Kennedy                Keyserling
Kinon                  Kirsh                  Knotts
Koon                   Lanford                Law
Limbaugh               Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Marchbanks             Martin
Mason                  McAbee                 McCraw
McMahand               Meacham                Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Neilson                Phillips
Quinn                  Rice                   Richardson
Riser                  Robinson               Rogers
Sandifer               Scott                  Seithel
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Shissias
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Spearman               Stille                 Thomas
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Vaughn                 Wells                  Whipper, L.
Whipper, S.            White                  Wilder
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Wofford
Worley                 Wright                 Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

So, the Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

Rep. HUFF moved that the House do now adjourn, which was adopted by a division vote of 45 to 42.

The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:

H. 4174 -- Reps. Cromer, Keegan, Sheheen, Quinn and Kelley: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON ON THE OCCASION OF ITS 175TH ANNIVERSARY AND DESIGNATING JULY 11, 1995, AS "DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON DAY IN SOUTH CAROLINA".

H. 4175 -- Reps. Harvin and J. Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE DEEPEST SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF ANNE WEISIGER LAND, OF MANNING, THE MOTHER OF OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE AND DEAR FRIEND, SENATOR JOHN LAND, AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF MRS. LAND'S FAMILY AND HER MANY FRIENDS.

H. 4177 -- Rep. Anderson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SALUTING DOROTHY BROCKMAN OF GREENVILLE COUNTY FOR HER LENGTHY SERVICE AND COUNTLESS CONTRIBUTIONS WHICH HAVE UPLIFTED THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY AND FOR HER DEDICATION AND WILLING SACRIFICES WHICH HAVE SERVED TO GENERATE PRIDE AND SELF-ESTEEM IN OTHERS.

At 5:08 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. J. YOUNG adjourned in memory of Ann Weisiger Land, mother of Senator John Land of Manning, to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:50 P.M.