Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

A quorum being present, the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:

Beloved, let us hear counsel from a higher authority through the Prophet Isaiah, Chapter 1 (vv. 18-19):

"Come now, and let us reason together saith the Lord: 'If ye be

willing and obedient to Me, ye shall eat the good of the land'."

(KJV) The New International Version renders the last words,

'You will eat the best from the land'."
Let us pray.

O God, our Ruler on High: as Your servant, our Governor James Hodges, comes before us tonight in our newly renovated State House in Joint Session, help us join hands and minds in the spirit of Him who said, "Come, let us reason together."

As we make plans for the welfare of our people, grant to us all such graces of the Spirit, such attitudes of mind, and such personal talents as will enable us, together, to attack the business of our people at every level of government.

Make us "willing and obedient servants" and we will claim Your promise, "You will eat the best from the land."

Amen.

The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.

The following was received and referred to the appropriate committee for consideration:

Document No. 2360
Agency: Commission on Higher Education
SUBJECT: Legislative Incentives for Future Excellence (LIFE) Scholarship
Received by Lieutenant Governor January 14, 1999
Referred to Education Committee
Legislative Review Expiration May 13, 1999

Senator GREGORY introduced Dr. Andy Pate of Lancaster, S.C., Doctor of the Day.

Mr. PRESIDENT, I have a few remarks I'd like to make.

I want to talk with you about something that is going on and apprise you of what the Insurance Subcommittee has confronted and, fortunately, in my absence they were able to deal with this issue. But I think you need to know what is going on with the automobile insurance reform and what I consider to be a very serious matter that is now attempting to be litigated in the courts and which, to me at least, appears to be different from what we agreed to.

As you know, the new insurance law is scheduled to go into operation on March 1st. At that time, the world will change, Senator from Greenville, where an insurance company now can refuse to write someone. In anticipation of that, the reforms that we passed call for allowing insurance companies to come in and file multi-tiered rates which allowed them to compartmentalize and to be very competitive.

The message that we sent out across America was that South Carolina was getting out of the business of the Legislature regulating the insurance rates. And that we would go on March 1st to a filer/use system that allowed them, as long as they didn't decrease beyond 7% or increase above 7%, that it would not trigger any form of prior approval or anything like that. A free, competitive marketplace is what we intended.

Now, Senator from York, as you know in order for us to accomplish that, the companies had to be able to come in and file their rates. And, so, that on March 1st, the entire system could shift over and begin under the new system and the rates would be there, in effect, on March 1st.

To do that, the companies had to be able to come in and file their rates in plenty of time, Senator from Greenville, the department would have a reasonable opportunity to review those rates. And, under the current law, we left alone anything dealing with the Consumer Advocate's power. He can go in there and look at the rates. It's just that the rates remain confidential until they are used. They would not be used by any of the new entrants into the South Carolina marketplace until March 1st.

Under the bill, those companies that are renewing business and are renewing it under the new rate, the moment, of course, that they start to renew, as I read the statute, the rate is effective, by their efforts, and by their agreement to renew. That is the only reasonable way that this law could go into effect.

In essence, and according to the question we asked before the Banking and Insurance Subcommittee, the Consumer Advocate's office is contending that they have the right, in that the filings that were made under the new law, are public information which would allow other companies to look in and see what new companies who are coming into the marketplace are already charging.

But, interestingly, is their assertion that there is the right to a public hearing before the rates could go into effect. Thus, in effect, the old law applies to the new law. And, I want to read you just very quickly some comments of the former Insurance Department head because I think they are very important to you to understand in the event that you have questions at home on this.

He says, "It is the Department's position based on the first statute handed out that these filings are confidential. Their position comes from the statute which begins and ends with the identical sentence, 'A filing and any supporting information are open to public inspection after the filing becomes effective.'"

Keep in mind that we were under an old system of prior approval which is the rate does not go into effect until approved by the Department. If anybody wanted a public hearing, they could request one. We raised that threshold to $2 million and, essentially, they have a hearing before the ALJ, Senator. If the Consumer Advocate under the new law finds that the rate is excessive or underpriced, he can still file a request and hold a hearing with the ALJ. But the rate is effective until something changes because we tried to go to a competitive marketplace. The Director said, "The Department's position based on the first statute handed out that the effective date of a filing is when the company first uses it in any way, not the actual date that they imposed the premium rate." But the day that they use it in any way. That goes to what I told you about the renewals.

"The third issue," he says, "is that if they are confidential, which the Consumer Advocate contends they are not, and they are not open to public inspection until after they become effective, when does the Consumer Advocate get to look at them?" The Department at that time said that "the Consumer Advocate can look at them at any time after they've filed, including prior to the effective date. The caveat is they sign a confidential agreement not to reveal the material that is considered confidential until it becomes a public document." The Department's position on that comes directly from the Consumer Advocate's own statute which says, in addition, "The Advocate shall have reasonable access to confidential records and information, provided he enters into a proprietary agreement to ensure that confidentiality."

The Department says the last issue in this entire discussion is tied to the whole situation and, that is, are auto insurance rate filings subject to public hearings? Their answer is, "for rates filed for use on or after March 1st this year under the new system, they are not." It is their position that the Legislature, by taking the word, 'automobile,' out of the rate filing statute, intended to get them out of prior approval. Well, if you look at this, common sense tells you that the only way to go to a competitive system on March 1st is to get rid of the prior approval law.

I want to quote to you what he says to the Committee because this is very important. "If we do not allow the new companies to have their rates in place, if we do not allow the new companies to be ready to offer coverage to those people who lose coverage on March 1st, they are going to go uninsured or they are going to be forced into coverage on March 1st in the residual market that was created by statute. That new market operates at self-sustaining rates at a much higher rate. The result of the market dislocation, Senator from Greenwood, will be that people, who do not get renewed because, keep in mind the designated agents under the new law cannot write new business for the facility which will become the JUA, could end up out in the marketplace if these rates are pulled because of this interpretation. They will not have rates in place on March 1st. People could thus be forced to have to go with the JUA rate at a much higher rate. That was, in my opinion at least, not the intent of this Legislature. It was not the intent to put the people into the higher rate.

I might tell you that based on everything I've heard, that the rate filings are generally rate decreases. But, you need to be aware of this because this could dislocate the entire shift over to a competitive market. And, as far as I'm concerned, if the people end up with the higher rates, the Consumer Advocate's office is going to have to take that blame -- not this General Assembly.

I do not understand why they are sporting around in the courts, suing another government agency on this. And, you can ask any member of this Committee if I have misstated anything. We have been out dealing with credit life insurance and making sure that senior citizens are protected and uneducated people are protected from having excessive rates charged on them.

In the hearings that we have held in the attempts to reform that, I have not seen a good solid helping hand come from that Consumer Advocate's office to help us in that area and if they don't have the time to help us in that, why is it they have the time to go and sue another public agency and essentially wobble this law and jeopardize what I consider to be the shift over to a competitive system.

I am very concerned about this. I'm concerned that these companies as the Insurance Director told the Committee, he feared what some of them might do, for instance, "companies can simply pull their rates and wait 'til after March 1st and then re-file the rates." But the market dislocation that could occur, I don't think is what we intended. We intended an automatic shift. I don't know how else and I would encourage any other members of the Insurance Subcommittee if I have misstated or misrepresented anything that they will join me on this.

The Senator from Richland is our financial expert and I'm sure that he did not intend in any way there to be a disruption in the financial market.
PRESIDENT:     Senator from Cherokee.
Sen. PEELER:     Will the the Senator from Charleston yield for a question?
Sen. McCONNELL:   Yes, sir.
Sen. PEELER:     Senator from Charleston, you have mentioned that if we had any questions from our folks back home, you could help us with it, and I sure appreciate your taking time to do this. You live in Charleston and I live in Gaffney so you probably don't get the comments that I get - the comparison of North Carolina insurance rates versus South Carolina's. But, I get it almost every week when I go back home.

Shelby, N.C., is less than 20 miles away from Gaffney. And, they cannot understand why insurance from the same company, the same coverage, for the same automobile is much, much less in North Carolina, Shelby, North Carolina, less than 20 miles away, than it is in Gaffney. And, every year, or at least every other year, we reform insurance. And it's going to make it better. If you remember last year, ya'll brought this to us. This was going to be the answer. I think this was the Virginia plan.
Sen. McCONNELL:   Beginning of the answer, yes, sir.
Sen. PEELER:     Okay. And, I asked you then, I think, "will this lower insurance rates?" And your answer was "yes."
Sen. McCONNELL:   For some it will, for some it will not.
Sen. PEELER:     Well, we found out during the Governor's race, the some that it would was the drunks. That it lowered the insurance rates on the drunk drivers but it raised the insurance rates on the good drivers.
Sen. McCONNELL:   No, sir.
Sen. PEELER:     Was that a fact?
Sen. McCONNELL:   No, of course, the State newspapers, some may consider it an "Epistle of Truth." I find it to be an "Epistle of Rhetoric" - outcome based reporting. That is, they never liked auto insurance reforms. They seemed to be enamored with the system we had and their legislatively stated goal, I think, was to shift us over to a choice/ no fault. And, that is where they wanted us to go. So, they were disappointed with the free market reforms that came out. The rates that they were referring to in those articles back during the campaign, the only rates that were filed and known, were the JUA rates. And those would be the highest rates allowed under law in South Carolina. The other rates that are filed are confidential and weren't even being used.

But, you know, it's just like I recall when they wrote that editorial on the Judicial Screening Committee back when we were looking at the Justice Toal question and they blasted the Legislature and talked about a witchhunt because we had issued so many subpoenas. The only person that knew the subpoenas that we issued were her lawyers and our lawyers and most of them were for the benefit of her and they were trying to help her. So, that newspaper, I certainly never use it as a means of getting my facts.
Sen. PEELER:     Well, Senator, you mentioned Justice Toal. Let's talk about the Justices. The Supreme Court ruled and I quite frankly don't understand what they were talking about, if you would help me. I'm serious about this. They ruled a unanimous decision that the Reinsurance Facility, the people that look over that is unconstitutional. Can you share with us what they're talking about there and what's unconstitutional about it?
Sen. McCONNELL:   Yes, sir. And, I'll try and address that North Carolina situation for you, too. And, I failed to do that in my previous response. I'm kind of like the Senator from Richland, when I get to talking about The State Newspaper's editorial page, I get distracted.
Sen. PEELER:     Well, I'll help you with North Carolina. I've had drafted a bill that mirrors the North Carolina insurance. If we can pass this bill, it will be the answer to my problems.
Sen. McCONNELL:   Yes, sir.
Sen. PEELER:     The main answer is, they elect statewide an Insurance Commissioner. That way, every four years, when we run for Governor, we can't place it at the Governor's feet - or you signed it - and the very idea of somebody that authors the bill and then blames it on someone else, but that's water over the bridge.
Sen. McCONNELL:   Yes, sir. Let me address that Supreme Court decision.
Sen. PEELER:   Would you help me with this bill?
Sen. McCONNELL:   I'll take a look at it. I don't sign on to something I haven't read.
Sen. PEELER:   That's why I haven't introduced it yet.
Sen. McCONNELL:   Well, bring it on over to the desk there and I'll give it a careful eye. Let me address your questions very quickly. As I understand the Supreme Court decision, it had to do with the fact that the Legislature, by passing a law, gave a private organization the right to designate seats on a public commission. It was an unlawful delegation of legislative authority.
Sen. PEELER:     In Gaffney, we call that the fox guarding the henhouse.
Sen. McCONNELL:   Yes, sir.
Sen. PEELER:     What do you call it in Charleston? Isn't that what you call it?
Sen. McCONNELL:   We call it, the possum guarding the crabpile. Anyway, Senator, in regards to the North Carolina system, essentially the difference is this. North Carolina has what I call a right, and the Senator from Darlington is much better versed at this than I, but they have recoupment, but the recoupment is jammed in on the front end, first of all. And then they come up with what they call a uniform rate. And then, you can go back and file systems to vary from the uniform rate if you can justify it and sell it and it's kind of a consent to write systems.

But they also, I understand, have a safer driving environment than we do and I think the Senator from Clarendon...
Sen. LAND:     Primary enforcement of seat belts.
Sen. McCONNELL:   I don't think that's what did it.
Sen. PEELER     They have a 70 mph speed limit on interstates.
Sen. McCONNELL:   They move their traffic smoother.
Sen. PEELER;     They had to. They're rushing down to South Carolina to play poker machines. That's a fact.
Sen. McCONNELL:   But, their system is different but basically, in practicality how that system operates is the Commissioner is publicly elected, always disallows the rate filings that are filed, and then they go to some kind of board and there are hearings and they end up with a decision, so it's kind of a Pontius Pilate situation. Everybody can wash their hands and you can always blame that quasi-judicial panel for having set the rate.

The difference for us in South Carolina is that we are moving from an entirely regulated system where 72% of the market is controlled by basically four companies to a free market system that already indicates a bunch of new companies coming into South Carolina. The good driver will no longer subsidize the bad driver.

Now, in regards to those newspaper articles about some people getting some decreases. Because the House had insisted upon terminology in the bill that created a 10% cap on recoupment, the result of that - and let me tell you - that was not in the Senate version, that was in the House version.

There are two sides to that question. If there's a 10% cap on recoupment as we phase out - and keep in mind recoupment should start quickly dropping as we depopulate this facility - those people out there that were paying thousands of dollars in recoupment, they probably are going to pay an overall lower rate. But, in terms of their actual insurance policy, liability rate, they are going to pay a larger amount. But the bottom line is the very worst drivers will probably pay a lower amount.

Now, you say, why should they be allowed to do that? Well, that is an issue that is being discussed. But, there is a counterpoint to that and the Senator from Darlington warned us years ago when we adopted that merit system what we were getting ready to do. And that was to price it so high for some of those people, that rather than carry it, they'll just drive without it. And, so there are two sides to that. The more people who don't insure, the less money there is going to be in the overall pool. If they are not paying money into the pool, then, obviously, the rates are higher for those of us who carry insurance. And, all of it is a debatable subject. But the House insisted upon that 10% cap on the recoupment.
Sen. PEELER:     Since when did you do what the House wanted you to do? You don't do what the Senate wants you to do.
Sen. McCONNELL:   That was one of the crumbs that we had to throw them in our negotiating to get a bill. And, the overall effect, when you read the Legislative Audit Council's Report and the fact that we had more cars in our residual market than, what was it, 42 other states, including the State of California. We knew we were in sad shape. And the residual market met essentially that they were out the private book of business. And what we were trying to do is get in.

And I have confidence that Governor Hodges will put somebody who is very competent in at the Department of Insurance and that they will manage the system and do a good job.
Sen. PEELER:   Senator from Charleston, do you have an opinion on a statewide elected Insurance Commissioner? Do you have an opinion on that?
Sen. McCONNELL:   I'm not adverse to that right off the bat.
Sen. PEELER:   I wish you'd take a look at that.
Sen. McCONNELL:   I'm not opposed to that. I don't know. I think ultimately it's going to be a combination of things. I'm concerned about whether or not - and I know this will get some of my trial lawyer friends a little bit upset - I'm not sure whether or not we are creating higher rates in South Carolina by our failure to clarify the rules regarding statutes. And the reason for it is because the arguments on stacking are so unsettled in that area that I believe we are charged actuarily because of the insurance company's fears of just how much they are going to have to pay in stacking. And the stacking should be a choice more for the consumer in terms of instead of imbedding it into the base and making it just part of the general overall exposure. That may or may not.

One of the Insurance Commissioners we talked to in another state said that what had a very big cost impact on insurance is the question of stacking. And it may be something we need to look at. Not necessarily do away with stacking, but clarify the rules so that everybody - so the lawyer isn't guilty of malpractice and they understand clearly what is stackable and what is not. The insurance companies do. And, the consumer only pays for what actually should exist in the marketplace. And, I think, if you talk to most lawyers in this chamber, you'll find there's a great deal of disagreement about the stacking laws as to what is and what isn't, where are the thresholds, are there time thresholds on it. Perhaps our newest lawyer, the one I hear on the radio stations in Greenville talking about if you've been involved in an accident or need a Will, to call Attorney David Thomas of Greenville. I heard that on the FM, Senator from Clarendon. A radio ad for a lawyer.
PRESIDENT:     Senator from Greenville, for what purpose do you rise?
Sen. THOMAS:   Mr. PRESIDENT, it seems like everybody in the whole state is confused from a legal perspective on what the stacking is. And, of course, it's the concept that you can take a policy on another car and add that on your insurance on the one that got hit or was involved in the accident. Then there are so many combinations that really the Insurance Committee would do this state a favor and the justice system a favor, we would delineate those rules and get into that and talk about it. Because, frankly, I'm the only one in the state right now that does understand it. And I charge too much for my consultations to be available to everybody so I think we should really clarify those rules and make sure that it is known. Because it is a huge mess, as the Senator from Charleston has said.
Sen. McCONNELL:   Well, Senator, I have heard your advertising beconing the public to come forth, Senator from Greenville, if they've been injured or they have an estate problem whatever and need a Will. Of course, they tell me the other day, Senator from Clarendon, they pay him by the page for a Will, but it will choke a mule, you know.
PRESIDENT:     Senator from Cherokee.
Sen. PEELER:     Senator from Charleston, on a lighter note, where is the other Senator from Charleston, Senator Ford?
Sen. McCONNELL:   He's escaped.
Sen. PEELER:     I read in the paper that he was doing some investigating down in Myrtle Beach. Is he still down there? To borrow a phrase from Bill Murray in Stripes, "Robert Ford, you madman. I want to party with you."
Sen. McCONNELL:   Well, I don't know that you can call Charleston the "City of Sin" anymore.
Sen. PEELER:     I hardly ever read the paper unless I'm in it and I was in it today in the Spartanburg Herald, but I had looked over on the next page and it said, "State Senator Studies Sin in Myrtle Beach Business." I read further. It says, "I counted 47 escort services in the phone book. I called seven of them and spent some time with those folks. Robert Ford, D-Charleston." Now, I don't want to talk about him if he's not here, but he must be busy.
PRESIDENT:     Research.
Sen. McCONNELL:   You know another person I'm real concerned about is the Senator from Spartanburg. I'm going to tell you after the mobile Mt. Everests that I saw on that plate last night, there couldn't be a millimeter of room left in that stomach, Senator from Greenville. I just hope he's still with us somewhere. He's here? Look here.

But, ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to tell you that we are concerned about this because if some rate filings get delayed, in my opinion at least, based on what I know, some of those rate filings are lower rates for people that are going to get delayed. There could be market dislocations for some and, you know, if our intent was to apply the old prior approval law to a file and use system and delay the implementation of those rates, Senator from Richland, you were there as we debated it, I don't recall us ever intending, Senator from York, to delay the implementation of the new system on March 1st. We set a target date, allowed everybody to get ready, and I'm just very concerned about this because we had a hearing on this and the Consumer Advocate did not come around on it and now I read where they apparently are sporting around in the courts and having hearings and I just wanted you to be aware so that if you're back home and if this thing by some reason - I can't imagine anybody would concur with their thought patterns on this - but, if it did happen, at least understand it and be able to explain to your constituents because I don't recall this having been in any way our intent to delay it or apply the old laws and state you had to have a hearing before the rates could go into effect. We put together a file and use system. If those companies are renewing business or using those new filed rates, obviously, they are the subject then of public record. But, if they are not using them, they are not in effect yet and until they are able to come in, some of these companies are not going to sit there and then have another company going through and looking at their data before they enter the marketplace. That doesn't make good business sense.
PRESIDENT:     Senator from Richland.
Sen. PATTERSON:     Senator entertain a friendly question?
Sen. McCONNELL:   Yes, sir. Knowing that I'm talking about the Consumer Affairs Department, I sure I've gotten your interests.
Sen. PATTERSON:     If they want to go in and look at these rates and open up the files, who are they helping when they open these up? Who do they want to show them to? What's the purpose of their wanting to go into them?
Sen. McCONNELL:   I'm not sure because as I understand the law, Senator, they can go in now, sign a confidentiality, and look at them and see if up the road they want to take exception to something when the material becomes public and the rate goes into effect. The testimony that ya'll had before the Subcommittee, as you recall, the Department indicated that almost no members of the public are there at these public hearings.
Sen. PATTERSON:   What I can't understand - and I want you to try and help me because you are our attorney in our Subcommittee that did all of this - you're my Finance Director - why is it they have such an interest in this but when all those people appeared before us in the Committee who had problems in insurance companies writing insurance on the wife instead of the husband who bought the truck, and then when the husband dies and the wife gets nothing, why did they never have any interest in that?
Sen. McCONNELL:   That is a good question and, as you recall, I don't recall them being up there like a broadcast tower telling us, with suggestions, what we should do. I recall those same stories about that and you recall the stories about people who bought insurance for two years and they were told, "Oh, don't worry about that, just sign." It was a blank sheet and they were in there on social security disability. Then when they make a claim, they said, "You didn't tell us that you had that heart problem. And, so, consequently, here's your premium back." But, if you get through the two years, we keep all of the money. And, as you know, we had members of the industry who stood up and said, "We want to help ya'll reform the law and get rid of those kinds of practices." Unless I'm having some problem with my hearing, I don't recall them getting up with a set of legislative recommendations to us, do you?
Sen. PATTERSON:     No. Do you recall one personally that I had a problem with my elderly uncle and aunt in Darlington who bought a trailer and they bamboozled them out of around $10,000. And I went to the Consumer Affairs. I said, "Help my aunt and uncle. They're up in their 80's." They said they couldn't do nothing about that. And the only way they got some of their money back was my friend, Ogburn, my homeboy, went to them and appealed to their conscience. And they gave them some of their money back. Now, he couldn't do nothing about that. But now he's going all the way into the court and filing a suit. Who is he helping? Who is he looking out for?
Sen. McCONNELL:   The only thing I can tell you, you recall we had these hearings and I spoke to the Chairman of the comparable Committee on the House side this morning and he reaffirmed to me apparently the same thing. They were there. They were content with the old system - the old auto insurance system with recoupment. So, I don't know what their agenda is. But, I certainly don't see them as the average people that we were hearing the testimony from. The position I simply take is that if they've got time to sport around in these very complex issues on the marketplace of file and use versus prior approval, which this General Assembly has spoken on, why don't they have time to help us with the essential issues of credit life, helping the uneducated people who are getting taken advantage of, senior citizens who are being taken advantage of, the types of cases you're talking about, if they've got time to sport around and sue other agencies, why don't they have the time to help all these people?
Sen. PATTERSON:     And when that lady out of my neighborhood, a half a block from my house, had all those problems with that insurance agency that took her husband's money and then when the husband died, the insurance company said they didn't get the money and didn't give them a damn thing, but they couldn't go to court on that, could he?
Sen. McCONNELL:   Senator, as you recall, I remember that lady very clearly. She was in tears.
Sen. PATTERSON:     Did it help her?
Sen. McCONNELL:   I don't recall them having helped them. And I recall we went down to Orangeburg and that lady that was the Senator from Orangeburg's constituent. She said they got involved in a finance agreement. They told them then and there - and he wanted to know if something happens to me because he couldn't - he knew that his wife could not afford that. And, as you know she stood before us, Senator from Orangeburg, Lillian Pearce said she was saddled with paying thousands of dollars for something she didn't even have because she had to turn back in. And, those are the sorts of stories and I don't want to condemn the industry because I want to tell you all very frankly that the industry has worked with the Subcommittee to try to put together a package of reform to close those loopholes and get rid of those practices. But we got more concrete suggestions in my opinion from the industry on how to reform the law than we ever did from the Department of Consumer Affairs. Senator from Orangeburg, you were there and heard what was going on. If I'm misstating anything or exaggerating anything, I just didn't hear a chorus of legislative suggestions, and 'here's what we think should be done' and 'here's the laws that you should consider' and all that. I didn't know
about anything this nonfile stuff until we got going with these hearings.
PRESIDENT:     Senator from Richland.
Sen. PATTERSON:   Question.
Sen. McCONNELL:   Yes, sir.
Sen. PATTERSON:   When the lady turned, wasn't it one of those big vans or something?
Sen. McCONNELL:   Big old van.
Sen. PATTERSON:   When she turned the van back in, did her payments stop?
Sen. McCONNELL:   No.
Sen. PATTERSON:   Or did she have to continue paying?
Sen. McCONNELL:   She had to continue paying.
Sen. PATTERSON:   And they had the van back?
Sen. McCONNELL:   They had the van back.
Sen. PATTERSON:   And the Consumer Affairs, what did they do about that?
Sen. McCONNELL:   Nothing. Not anything that I'm aware of. She said she's footing the bill. She was paying. She said her husband would have never bought it.
Sen. PATTERSON:   But now he's gone to court. Now, you're my lawyer. You've got to answer this. You can't get around this now. Who is he going to court for? Who? Now, come on now, tell me something.
Sen. McCONNELL:   Senator, I'm really not sure. It doesn't appear to me to be for the people of South Carolina.
Sen. PATTERSON:   Look like he's going for the insurance companies, ain't he?
Sen. McCONNELL:   Well, it would look like to me somebody other than the people will benefit off of this. I don't know who it is. I really don't.
Sen. PATTERSON:   Is he going for the State Newspaper. All of those drunks down there strumming over them typerwriters.
Sen. McCONNELL:   I can't read his mind. I can only tell you that I think that it's in the public interest to try to go to carry out what we intended and it doesn't appear to me that these lawsuits will carry out what we intended. We never intended a prior approval system with public hearings before these rates could go into effect. We just set... that was not... you know, if somebody knows different, say so. But I do not understand it to have been there.
Sen. PATTERSON:   Were you trying to get that information for the reporter for the State Newspaper who wrote them articles? Do you think that's who he was getting that for?
Sen. McCONNELL:   I don't know. Maybe somebody will find out along the way. I really don't know. I just don't understand. I know it wasn't to carry out what we intended. And, I didn't want something to occur with a meltdown and people at least not understand this issue.
PRESIDENT:     Senator from Orangeburg, for what purpose to you rise?
Sen. MATTHEWS:   Senator, will you yield for a question?
PRESIDENT:     Senator yields.
Sen. MATTHEWS:   Based on the fact that they are in court, with which I disagree, I don't know why they are going to court, have you got any suggestions or recourse that we can express our opinion to them that they ought to get out and let this process to proceed.
Sen. McCONNELL:   Senator, I've read the minutes of that last meeting and I think you all are pretty clear that you didn't approve of what they were doing. Unfortunately, they are proceeding forward. I'm not sure what, if anything, we can do remediation-wise if things go sour except to make sure that we make it crystal clear that this was not our intent, this was not the policy that we wanted and that hopefully, I've explained to you all. I want to say the other far-reaching effect of this is that this General Assembly intended to send a strong message to the industry that so far has been responding very positively and that was, that we were not going to interfere, we were going to allow this system to go into effect and it bothers me that perhaps a big chilling effect is going to occur out of this with some of the companies. And I hope that doesn't occur. I'm going to tell you that if we see up the road that the companies do not serve the public interest and they take advantage and get greedy on the public, you know, the opportunity on up the road will be there.
Sen. MATTHEWS:   My question is, and I understand what you're saying, but would not a letter from our Subcommittee or a Resolution from this body, because of regardless if a chilling effect takes place, which I think will take place, it's going to be our problem. It's an unintended consequence that I think we need to deal with.
Sen. McCONNELL:   The best that I know we can do at this point is to be ready to look for a quick fix in the event that they are successful in disrupting this movement into the new system and I've scheduled a meeting for next week of the Subcommittee to take up this very subject, but I felt it important to advise the Senate so that all of you would have some answers on this. This is what the Audit recommended as you know... the Legislative Audit Council... we kind of mirrored that and followed through. Based on everything I've heard, al lot of the filings deal with rate decreases. Hopefully, that's what will occur. Any other members of the Subcommittee may wish to have anything additional to say. I just felt that it needed to be said. We had pledged an open, competitive environment and that environment was the kick-off on March 1st. You use the rate in South Carolina, then it will be public knowledge. But we wanted to allow the department and everybody to have that material, Senator from Greenwood, to be knowledgeable on it, to transition in on March 1st. Like I said, I have confidence in the Governor, his ability to pick somebody very competent to head up the Department of Insurance, and we'll have the benefit of their advice and partnership in working together should we develop some problems up the road in the new system. So we have scheduled a meeting next week for a quick fix if, in fact, this thing gets skewered in some way and sent off course. But I wanted you to at least understand these issues because at this point, I think I can speak for the whole Subcommittee and tell you, that we're not enamored with the Consumer Advocate's Office. They certainly didn't get a hero's welcome when they came to testify before us. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Mr. PRESIDENT. I will be brief as the Senator from Charleston has pretty well said everything I wanted to say, but I wanted to make a few comments about this particular problem

The first thing is this Consumer Advocate's Office's budget is over a million dollars a year. This time of year I see a lot of people writing those tax checks out to pay the S.C. Department of Revenue. We've got one state agency suing another state agency. And they tried to come before our Committee, Senator Thomas, and say this was no cost to the taxpayers. No cost from their office, no cost from the Department of Insurance's office, no cost to clog up the court over here, the Supreme Court, and no cost to the taxpayers.

Now, Senator HAYES, in the testimony in this Committee -- and this is one thing I want to drive home to you -- what the ultimate cost is going to be. The calls and letters and grief are going to come to you. So, I just want to quote what this fellow has done probably, as the Senator from Richland said, pandering to the State Newspaper. Senator HAYES asked him the question about what would be the ultimate effect -- and this is Mr. Jedziniak whom I respect, who was the former Insurance Commissioner. He says probably what's going to happen -- to paraphrase what he says, there are 800,000 people at risk. In a population of this state of 3.7, 3.8 million, we've got 800,000 people who are at risk.

And, what does he mean by "at risk?" If they are successful over in the court, which I hope they are not, that means that all these companies who file are going to withdraw their filings, Senator COURTNEY.

That means that the people this guy's supposed to protect are going to be ceded into the JUA which means a higher rate. Some of them are not going to get insurance. Who are they going to call? Who are these half a million people that Mr. Jedziniak said were probably going to be bumped because of the actions of the Consumer Advocate? Who are they going to call? They are going to call us. And they are going to be mad. They are going to be mad about the higher rates and no insurance and the confusion in the marketplace. A total disruption in the marketplace. Why?

In October, he filed this lawsuit. And he said, you know, we wanted court action on it. And the point I made to him in the Committee is - and I think he thought this was significant and this was a clarification of law about a statute - he thought they were going to get quick action from the Supreme Court. Well, I made the point, you know, probably one of the most momentous decisions to come out of the court in recent memory was the video poker decision and they took almost a year on that. Why do they think they're going to get an expedited hearing over in the court? The whole thing's at a standstill. Clogging up the court time. And the point I'm making is just philosophical. Why do we have one state agency suing another? That's a question that I think needs to be answered by that gentleman and anybody else in state government.

But, you know, the arbitrator of all this is the General Assembly. He should have waited to get this resolved -- if he was right - until the second Tuesday in January and he'd have an expedited hearing-- and if he was right, he would have gotten the relief he wanted and petitioned for.

Now, look where we are. And, I guarantee you if Senator SMITH gets a spattering of those 800,000 telephone calls, he's going to be mad. And, that's what's getting ready to happen. To all of us.

PRESIDENT: Senator from Greenville.

Senator THOMAS: Would the Senator entertain a question?

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   Yes, sir.

Senator THOMAS: Senator, what we're hearing about the possibility - I mean, we were already faced with the possibility of some of these folks, maybe a lot of older citizens not being able to get hooked up with insurance very quickly because we are in a translation between one kind, one way of doing it and another way of doing it.   Now, what I'm hearing is that this might not just be sort of temporary, I mean, it might be an ongoing problem and I think we better to be ready to if not enough companies are there to take those individuals that were in the Reinsurance Facility, and pick them up, we are going to end up with a huge mess on our hands. And, it's not going to be the Consumer Affairs that gets blamed for it.

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   Exactly.

Sen. THOMAS:   We will be blamed for this. And I hope everybody in here is really thinking through just how serious this problem is because it's going to - will it not rev up in January or does it have a flow?

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   Well, if they rule in favor of the Consumer Advocate, then what we're told by Mr. Jedziniak - again whom I respect - is that we've got the potential of all these companies to pull these rate filings, which means that all these people...

Sen. THOMAS:   In March or before ...

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   In March or before -- and so what we'll have is all these people potentially, and that's why I wanted to reiterate the point of the Senator from Charleston - 800,000 people are at risk because of this impetuous action on behalf of the Consumer Advocate.

Sen. THOMAS:   It was going to be - I think it was going to a little chancy anyway as we went through the transition. But, now, as we go through this transition or translation from one system to another, and potentially have some of the companies moving out, it's almost going to be a certainty. My question to you is, in this Committee meeting that's coming up with the Senator from Charleston and you're on that Subcommittee also, are you all going to be looking at some fallback provisions or ways by which we could - if my daddy gets called and my daddy can't get insurance, or your daddy can't get insurance, etc., etc., and all these, how many hundreds of thousands of people in the Reinsurance Facility can't get covered, it's going to be one more bloody mess. And, the question is, we are going to have to do something to be prepared for that. Is that the sort of thing you all are going to be looking at? Fallback legislation in case it looks like that's precisely what's going to happen?

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   Well, I think we're going to have to do something. I'm not sure what because it's at the State Supreme Court now to rule on. I'm not sure what the ruling's going to come down. I'm just a messenger. And the message we're trying to send you is this guy is pandering to the State Newspaper and has created a disruption in the marketplace. It could have been resolved in the legislature by a very easy technical amendment.

Sen. THOMAS:   We're all, in a way, messengers because we're having to deliver the bad news back home and I've heard of messengers getting shot before. And, I can see those guns starting to kind of turn around aiming in our direction by something that is well thought out, a wonderful program to go to a free market system, and now, we're going to find ourselves - we're on a precipice right now that could blow up and we are going to find ourselves falling off that thing and we better have some fallback legislation ready to roll if we see that there aren't enough companies to pick up those people coming out of the Reinsurance Facility that can't get insurance. If we don't have something in place - and I don't know what. I haven't thought through it except what I've sort of been picking up little bits at a time. And, now, there's more bad news on this whole thing. We better have something there so that when this happens, we don't get sideswiped by it and we've got something there ready to at least hold them so that they're all insured some kind of way.

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   I share your concerns. What I'm going to do, Mr. PRESIDENT, one page of this which defines the magnitude of it, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to make copies and hand this out to the members because this is what we're faced with.

PRESIDENT:     Without objection. Senator from Clarendon.

Sen. LAND:   Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   Yes, sir.

PRESIDENT: Gentleman yields.

Sen. LAND:   Talking about these 850,000 at risk drivers out there, did you bring that up to this particular director?

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   Yes, sir.

Sen. LAND:   What's his response to that?
Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   Their response is that they don't think it's going to cause that disruption and the confidentiality is the overriding concern they have, not the disruption in the marketplace.

Sen. LAND:       Did you ask him whether or not he had the full support of his Commission and supported by the Governor?

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE: No, sir. I don't think that question was asked. That Commission, I don't believe, is appointed by the Governor. I believe it's elective. But, I talked to some of the Commission members - Mr. Randolph is the Chairman. I've talked to a number of Commission members and expressed my concern. The General Assembly elects them. That's something we may want to look at, too.

Sen. LAND:     Well, does he have the support of his Commission?

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   I don't think so. Not at this point in time. Honestly. I think he did this - honest to goodness, I think he was pandering to the reporter at the State Newspaper because they couldn't get access to the information.

Sen. LAND:     Well, did you get a feel that he realizes what the danger the state is in because of his actions or he could withdraw his suit just that easily.

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   We conveyed to him, and if you read his testimony, we conveyed to him the magnitude of the problem. But, I still to this day don't think that he's got the message. I'm going to tell you - and talk about this budget, you know this million dollar budget that this fellow's got - you know, if they think they can sue other state agencies free of charge, there's going to be an attitude adjustment in the Finance Committee. But, I think the potential harm he has caused, to have a correction that we could have taken care of legislatively is far overriding.

Sen. LAND:     Will your Committee ...

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   As I understand, we're going to meet - Senator McCONNELL, as I understand it, we're going to meet again next week on this to see if we can do something about it.

Sen. LAND:     What's our deadline so to speak?

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   Well, I think the court's got the problem in their lap. Only thing I can tell you is, you know, I don't think they're going to make a decision quickly on this.

Sen. LAND:     Well, I would certainly think that this General Assembly could direct a state agency to withdraw a suit.

Sen. PASSAILAIGUE:   Well, I would hope so because, again, the thing could be corrected. If he is right, we could correct that now. But, he's caused a massive disruption in the marketplace. And, that's the thing I wanted - I didn't want to come up here and just to reiterate what he's said because I don't think the members here understood the magnitude of what was going on that we heard in our Committee hearings and that's what I got up here to talk about.

Thank you, Mr. PRESIDENT, and members of the Senate. I will be very brief but I would like to follow up just a little bit on the Senators from Charleston -- Senator McCONNELL and Senator PASSAILAIGUE - and what they've had to say about the Consumer Advocate.

And, many of you in your Committee work, I am sure, have occasion to have Mr. Porter and his people before you for the problems you are considering. But, I wanted to tell you that on our Insurance Subcommittee, we've had him before us on many, many occasions and I want to tell you that we have reason to be concerned about the action that he has taken on behalf of the consumers in South Carolina. We've worked with him on automobile insurance reform, we're working now on credit life and credit disability insurance reform and we're not getting a lot of help.

And, I want to tell you during automobile insurance reform, the entire time that he came before our Committee, which were several public hearings that we held across the state, he continually supported the plan that we had to keep the recoupment fees. He never once tried to help as far as any reform that we were trying to do.

Credit life now - the things that we are trying to do there to try to bring at least the people who need that and who don't really have a voice in government and don't really have a constituency out there to argue for them - he's never there to speak on their behalf and those are the people he's supposed to be representing.

But to follow up on the Senator from Clarendon's comments about talking to these Commissioners, that is something I feel that we need to do as Senators and we need to do that very quickly. That is, for us to get our Legislative Manuals out, see who those Board members are, we are the ones who elect them - they are not appointed by the Governor - contact them by phone or by letter and tell them the concerns that we have. Because the actions that this gentleman and his agency are taking right now are absolutely detrimental to the very people that he is supposed to be representing, the very people he's supposed to be protecting, and that's the consumers of South Carolina.

He's brought a lawsuit now against another agency that he says is no cost to the public and that's absolutely no way that that can be true because there's no way you can spend time from your staff people, your attorneys there, and it not cost the government money. But, the thing that disappoints me the most about him is that in our Subcommittee meetings when I was questioning him about had he read or seen the filings that these insurance companies had made, they had not even taken the trouble to go and look at them.

So, even though they have to sign a confidentiality agreement before they look at the filings of the insurance companies before they see them, they had not even taken the trouble to do that. They don't know if the insurance companies' filings are lower, if thery are going to be lower insurance rates for the consumers in South Carolina or higher. They don't have any idea. And, they've got the right to go and do that. And, yet, they have brought a major lawsuit before the Supreme Court of South Carolina totally uninformed about what they're suing over. And, the result of that could be absolutely catastrophic to the people we represent and the people that he's supposed to be there protecting.

So, I would just ask you to look in your Manuals, get your offices, your staff people there, to find the names of those Commissioners, send them a letter and ask them to look into this and voice your concerns because it could be very, very catastrophic for the people back home.

PRESIDENT: Senator from Greenville.

Sen. THOMAS: One quick question and I know the hour is late, will you entertain a question?

Sen. COURTNEY: Yes, sir.

Sen. THOMAS: Is it not true that when you had these folks in front of you from the Commission, that you were asking them these very, very pointed questions like you are talking to us right now?

Sen. COURTNEY:   Senator, I asked - I think it's Miss Coombs, who is the attorney with them, with Mr. Porter standing beside her - probably three or four times, 'Have you gone to look at the filings that have been made by the insurance companies?' 'No.' 'Why not?' 'Well, we have to file or sign a confidentiality agreement and we don't want to do that.' 'Well, why wouldn't you at least go and look at it so you can see if there's a problem before you bring a lawsuit?' 'We just don't want to do it.'

Sen. THOMAS: Do you think they have any comprehension really of the impact that they're having based on your questions to them?

Sen. COURTNEY: I couldn't see it on their expressions on their faces. I mean, when you looked at them, you'd just get the idea they just don't know what they're doing.

Sen. THOMAS: All right, thank you.

Mr. PRESIDENT and fellow members of the Senate. I simply want to stand here and echo that sentiment.
I think we are getting into some areas that can cause us some difficulties by some people with some other kind of ambitions that we ought to deal with. I trained off the proposition that we ought to either do a Resolution or a strong letter to those Board members and let them know the impact that they are having because of this political witchhunt.
And, clearly, other people who have signed confidentiality statements to look at the rate filings - we've had one Senator who intends to file some legislation and he backed off of that after he looked at the filings. And, I think it's going to cause us some unnecessary heartaches and we need to end it and end it fast.
So, I would hope that the Chairman of the Banking and Insurance Committee and our Subcommittee Chairman would be prepared to give us a sense of direction which we ought to take in the morning and we ought to take it.

On motion of Senator COURTNEY, with unanimous consent, the remarks were ordered printed in the Journal.

The following were introduced:

S. 358 (Word version) -- Senator Peeler: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-390, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TAKING OF ANTLERLESS DEER, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MAY ISSUE INDIVIDUAL TAGS FOR TAKING ANTLERLESS DEER STATEWIDE EXCEPT ON PROPERTIES RECEIVING ANTLERLESS DEER QUOTA PERMITS.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry.

S. 359 (Word version) -- Senator Anderson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-210, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE GRACE PERIOD FOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION, SO AS TO REQUIRE DEALERS TO ISSUE INTERIM LICENSE PLATES AND REGISTRATION CARDS WHEN THEY SELL VEHICLES; TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO DESIGN THE LICENSE PLATE TO BE MADE OF AN INEXPENSIVE AND IMPERMANENT MATERIAL; TO PROVIDE FOR A FIVE DOLLAR FEE FOR THE LICENSE PLATE; TO PROVIDE THAT, IF A PERSON PURCHASES A VEHICLE FROM A PERSON OTHER THAN A DEALER, THEN THE PURCHASER MUST APPLY TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR AN INTERIM LICENSE PLATE AND REGISTRATION CARD WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF PURCHASING THE VEHICLE; TO PROVIDE FOR PENALTIES; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 56-3-220, RELATING TO DEALER "SOLD" CARDS.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Transportation.

S. 360 (Word version) -- Senator Anderson: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 41, TITLE 39, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TRADE AND COMMERCE, BY ADDING SECTION 39-41-300 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A CONVENIENCE STORE OR OTHER MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SERVICE STATION HAVING THREE OR MORE EMPLOYEES ON DUTY SIMULTANEOUSLY TO INSTALL PUBLIC RESTROOM FACILITIES.

Read the first time and referred to the General Committee.

S. 361 (Word version) -- Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 29-6-35 SO AS TO PERMIT A SUBCONTRACTOR OR MATERIAL SUPPLIER TO RECLAIM CERTAIN MATERIALS EVEN IF A MECHANIC'S LIEN OR ANY OTHER LIEN HAS BEEN FILED WITH RESPECT TO THE REAL PROPERTY, AND PROVIDE THAT ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT, UPON REQUEST OF THE SUBCONTRACTOR OR MATERIAL SUPPLIER, SHALL RENDER ASSISTANCE IN THE RECOVERY OF SUCH MATERIALS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 29-6-60, RELATING TO THE INSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 6, TITLE 29 THAT PERTAIN TO PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND SUPPLIERS DO NOT APPLY.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 362 (Word version) -- Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 29-5-90, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MECHANICS' LIENS, THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WHICH MUST BE SERVED ON THE OWNER TO PRESERVE THE LIEN, AND THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENT, SO AS TO CHANGE FROM NINETY DAYS TO ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS THE TIME PERIOD FOR SERVICE AND FILING UNDER THIS SECTION, AND PROVIDE FOR THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 363 (Word version) -- Senator Grooms: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 34-39-180, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFERRED PRESENTMENT SERVICES, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION WHICH STATES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO ISSUES A PERSONAL CHECK TO A LICENSEE UNDER A DEFERRED PRESENTMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 34-41-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CHECK CASHING SERVICES, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT EACH CHECK CASHING TRANSACTION MUST BE DOCUMENTED BY A WRITTEN AGREEMENT.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 364 (Word version) -- Senator Martin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 37-15-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE PRIZES AND GIFTS ACT, SO AS TO DEFINE "SPONSOR" AS A CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP, OR NATURAL PERSON THAT OFFERS A PRIZE TO A PERSON IN SOUTH CAROLINA IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SALE OR LEASE OF ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE, OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY REAL OR PURPORTED CONTEST, COMPETITION, SWEEPSTAKES, PUZZLE, DRAWING, SCHEME, PLAN, OR OTHER SELECTION PROCESS THAT REQUIRES, OR CREATES THE REASONABLE IMPRESSION OF REQUIRING, OR ALLOWS THE PERSON TO PAY ANY MONEY AS A CONDITION OF RECEIVING, OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALLOWING THE PERSON TO RECEIVE, USE, COMPETE FOR, OR OBTAIN A PRIZE, OR INFORMATION ABOUT A PRIZE; TO AMEND SECTION 37-15-30 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON REPRESENTATIONS THAT A PERSON HAS WON A PRIZE OR CONTEST, SO AS TO MAKE THIS SECTION APPLICABLE TO A SPONSOR RATHER THAN TO ANY PERSON IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE, LEASE, OR SOLICITATION FOR THE SALE OR LEASE OF GOODS, PROPERTY, OR SERVICE; TO AMEND SECTION 37-15-40, RELATING TO THE FORM AND CONTENT OF DISCLOSURES REQUIRED AS PREREQUISITES TO REPRESENTATION THAT PERSON HAS CHANCE TO WIN SOMETHING, SO AS TO REVISE THE DISCLOSURES WHICH MUST BE MADE AND TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR SPONSORS OF PRIZE PROMOTIONS THAT AWARD ALL PRIZES ABSOLUTELY FOR FREE AND IN WHICH THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY FROM THE PERSON TO THE SPONSOR, OR ANY AGENT OF THE SPONSOR; TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TITLE 37 OF THE 1976 CODE, BY ADDING SECTION 37-15-45 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A SPONSOR WHO REPRESENTS TO A PERSON THAT THE PERSON HAS BEEN AWARDED A PRIZE SHALL, NOT LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER MAKING A REPRESENTATION, PROVIDE THE PERSON WITH THE PRIZE, OR WITH A VOUCHER, CERTIFICATE, OR OTHER DOCUMENT GIVING THE PERSON THE UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE PRIZE, OR SHALL PROVIDE THE PERSON WITH OTHER CONSIDERATION; TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TITLE 37 OF THE 1976 CODE, BY ADDING SECTION 37-15-55 SO AS TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN ACTS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-15-80, RELATING TO CIVIL ACTIONS TO ENFORCE THE PRIZES AND GIFTS ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY PERSON SUFFERING A PECUNIARY LOSS BECAUSE OF AN INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF THIS ACT MAY RECOVER THE GREATER OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR TWICE THE AMOUNT OF THE PECUNIARY LOSS; TO AMEND SECTION 37-15-100 OF THE CODE, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY WILLFUL FAILURE OF A SELLER CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER THIS ACT TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE TERMS OF THE EXEMPTION SHALL RENDER A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION VOID; AND TO AMEND SECTION 37-1-203 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO JURISDICTION OVER CREDITORS, SO AS TO ALSO MAKE THIS SECTION APPLICABLE TO PERSONS OTHER THAN CREDITORS WHOSE CONDUCT IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 37.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 365 (Word version) -- Senators Giese, Mescher, Reese, Bryan, Wilson, Rankin and Patterson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-18-900, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS OF THE ANNUAL REPORT CARD ON EACH SCHOOL AND SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE STATE, SO AS TO INCLUDE HEALTH EDUCATION AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION IN PROGRAMS AND CURRICULUM INCLUDED IN THE SCHOOL AND DISTRICT REPORT CARDS.

Senator GIESE spoke on the Bill.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.

S. 366 (Word version) -- Senator Peeler: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT SCHOOL DAYS MISSED ON JANUARY 4, 5, AND 6, 1999, BY THE STUDENTS OF THE CHEROKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SCHOOL YEAR 1998-99 WHEN THE SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO ICE AND WEATHER CONDITIONS AND A LACK OF ELECTRICITY ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.

S. 367 (Word version) -- Senators Anderson and Reese: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-63-243 SO AS TO REQUIRE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS AND TO REQUIRE A CHILD EXPELLED FOR MORE THAN ONE WEEK TO BE PLACED IN A PRIVATE OR ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.

S. 368 (Word version) -- Senators Passailaigue and Martin: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5, ARTICLE X OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO FINANCE AND TAXATION, BY AMENDING SECTION 5, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY TAX, SUBSIDY, OR CHARGE WHICH IS ESTABLISHED, FIXED, LAID, OR LEVIED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MUST BE APPLIED TO THE STATED PURPOSE AND THEREAFTER, THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE STATED PURPOSE.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 369 (Word version) -- Senators Martin and Alexander: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 37, CHAPTER 6, TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-5085 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER WHO DESIRES TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FUND MAY DESIGNATE THE CONTRIBUTION ON THE STATE INCOME TAX FORM.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 370 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler and Passailaigue: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, TITLE 50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COASTAL FISHERIES, BY ADDING SECTION 50-17-550, SO AS TO REGULATE AND PROVIDE RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCIAL TAKING AND RECREATIONAL FISHING FOR DOLPHIN; BY ADDING SECTION 50-17-560, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO HARVEST OR POSSESS SARGASSO WEED IN THIS STATE EXCEPT UNDER A PERMIT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THESE SECTIONS.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry.

S. 371 (Word version) -- Senators Short and Reese: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 55, TITLE 39, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA CEMETERY ACT OF 1984, SO AS TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ESTABLISH THE SOUTH CAROLINA CEMETERY BOARD, PROVIDE FOR ITS POWERS AND DUTIES, AND REVISE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER REGARDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FUNERAL VAULTS, CEMETERIES, AND LICENSES.

Read the first time and referred to the General Committee.

S. 372 (Word version) -- Senators Anderson and Glover: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2725, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DAY CARE CENTER EMPLOYMENT, SO AS TO EXEMPT CERTAIN OFFENSES WHICH PROHIBIT AN INDIVIDUAL FROM BEING EMPLOYED AS A DAY CARE WORKER.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 373 (Word version) -- Senator Holland: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-1-25, SO AS TO DEFINE THE WORD "RESIDENT" FOR VOTING PURPOSES; TO AMEND SECTION 7-5-230, RELATING TO BOARDS OF REGISTRATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE CHALLENGING OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN ELECTOR; AND TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 7-5-325, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF A CHANGE OF ADDRESS IS DEEMED GIVEN UNDER OATH.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 374 (Word version) -- Senators Land and Giese: A BILL TO AMEND PART 5, CHAPTER 5, TITLE 62 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO POWERS OF ATTORNEY, BY ADDING SECTION 62-5-506 SO AS TO PROHIBIT A PERSON LOCATED IN THIS STATE FROM REFUSING TO HONOR A DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY PROPERLY EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 62-5-501.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 375 (Word version) -- Senator Anderson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-530, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE FORFEITURE PROCEDURES, THE DISPOSITION OF FORFEITED ITEMS, AND THE DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS OF SALES OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY CONFISCATED PURSUANT TO THE SEIZURE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, SO AS TO MODIFY THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY FORFEITED, TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPENSATION OF PERSONS PROVIDING INFORMATION LEADING TO THE FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY, AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITIES.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 376 (Word version) -- Senator Anderson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE EXCEPTIONS FROM LIABILITY FOR GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES UNDER THE GOVERNMENTAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, SO AS TO EXEMPT COUNTY SHERIFFS' DEPARTMENTS AND MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS FROM LIABILITY WHEN ESCORTING FUNERAL PROCESSIONS.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 377 (Word version) -- Senator Glover: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, TITLE 16, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRIMES AND OFFENSES, BY ADDING SECTION 16-17-475 SO AS TO PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM COMMITTING THE CRIME OF VOYEURISM, TO DEFINE VOYEURISM, AND TO PROVIDE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CONVICTION OF VOYEURISM.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 378 (Word version) -- Senator Washington: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAYS 162 AND 165 IN HOLLYWOOD IN HONOR OF MR. HERBERT GADSON.

The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and referred to the Committee on Transportation.

S. 379 (Word version) -- Senators Bryan, Setzler, Giese, Drummond, Martin, McGill, J. Verne Smith, Ravenel, Anderson, O'Dell, Passailaigue, Moore, Branton, Courtney, Wilson, Hutto, Fair, Hayes, Washington, Alexander, Leventis, Saleeby, Land, Reese, Short, Patterson, Holland, McConnell, Russell, Rankin, Mescher, Thomas, Grooms, Ryberg, Ford, Gregory, Waldrep, Jackson, Matthews, Courson, Glover, Cork and Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 146 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES BONDS AS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO PRESCRIBE THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, USES, AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE BONDS AND THEIR PROCEEDS.

On motion of Senator BRYAN, with unanimous consent, the Bill was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

H. 3278 (Word version) -- Reps. Wilkins, Haskins, Harrison, H. Brown, Cato, Sharpe, Townsend, J. Brown and D. Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION INVITING HIS EXCELLENCY, JAMES H. HODGES, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION AT 7:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1999, IN THE CHAMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 3282 (Word version) -- Rep. McMahand: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE AND EXTEND SINCERE BEST WISHES TO MRS. GERTRUDE BROCK ON THE OCCASION OF HER 100TH BIRTHDAY.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 3305 (Word version) -- Reps. Campsen, Rodgers and Gilham: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND HELEN COGGESHALL HARVEY OF BEAUFORT UPON BEING NAMED THE 1999 SOUTH CAROLINA MOTHER OF THE YEAR, AND TO RECOGNIZE HER MANY NOTABLE AND DISTINGUISHED ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS A MOTHER OF FIVE CHILDREN AND A GRANDMOTHER OF SEVENTEEN GRANDCHILDREN, AND AS A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED, ON BOTH A LOCAL AND STATEWIDE BASIS, IN EDUCATION, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, POLITICAL LIFE, CHARITABLE ENDEAVORS, AND PROFESSIONALLY AS A REALTOR.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

Senator DRUMMOND from the Committee on Finance submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

S. 1 (Word version) -- Senators Passailaigue, McConnell, Ford, O'Dell, Elliott and Branton: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7, ARTICLE XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO LOTTERIES, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE LOTTERIES CONDUCTED ONLY BY THE STATE AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE NET REVENUE DERIVED FROM THE LOTTERIES BE USED SOLELY TO SUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS AND ENHANCEMENTS TO EDUCATION PURPOSES AND PROGRAMS AS PROVIDED FOR BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator DRUMMOND from the Committee on Finance submitted a favorable report on:

S. 2 (Word version) -- Senators Passailaigue, McConnell, Ford and Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 11 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PUBLIC FINANCE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 45, ENTITLED THE "SOUTH CAROLINA LOTTERY FOR EDUCATION ACT" SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A STATE LOTTERY, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH MUST BE USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND PROGRAMS; TO CREATE THE SOUTH CAROLINA LOTTERY CORPORATION AND TO PROVIDE FOR ITS BOARD MEMBERSHIP, DUTIES, AND POWERS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF A LOTTERY RETAILERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE METHOD OF CONTRACTING WITH VENDORS AND RETAILERS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE SALE OF TICKETS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZES; TO PROVIDE FOR BUDGETING OF LOTTERY PROCEEDS; TO CREATE A LOTTERY CORPORATION LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE; AND TO PROVIDE FOR SET-OFF DEBT COLLECTION FROM PRIZE WINNINGS.

Senator DRUMMOND asked unanimous consent to recommit the report to the Committee on Finance, retaining its place on the Calendar.

There was no objection.

Senator FORD from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a favorable report on:

S. 36 (Word version) -- Senators Waldrep, Elliott and Ryberg: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 2-20-25 SO AS TO REQUIRE A PERSON SERVING IN AN OFFICE ELECTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WHO IS NOT SEEKING REELECTION TO GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF SUCH TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE REVIEW OF CANDIDATES.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator HOLLAND from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a favorable report on:

S. 44 (Word version) -- Senators Jackson, Elliott and Wilson: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 3, TITLE 23, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, BY ADDING SECTION 23-3-115, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION SHALL CHARGE A FEE NOT TO EXCEED FIVE DOLLARS FOR A CRIMINAL RECORD SEARCH CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE AND RELATED REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN SUBARTICLE 1, ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 73 OF THE CODE OF REGULATIONS, IF THE CRIMINAL RECORD SEARCH IS CONDUCTED FOR A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION OR FOR THE USE OF A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator RANKIN from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a favorable report on:

S. 60 (Word version) -- Senator Ford: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 53-5-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LEGAL HOLIDAYS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MARTIN LUTHER KING'S BIRTHDAY AND CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL DAY SHALL BE REGULAR, RATHER THAN OPTIONAL, HOLIDAYS; TO DELETE REFERENCES TO ROBERT E. LEE'S BIRTHDAY AND JEFFERSON DAVIS' BIRTHDAY AS HOLIDAYS; AND TO MAKE GENERAL ELECTION DAY AN OPTIONAL, RATHER THAN REGULAR, HOLIDAY.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator HOLLAND from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a favorable report on:

S. 65 (Word version) -- Senators Hayes and Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 2-7-55 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE CODE COMMISSIONER TO ANNOTATE IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS ALL UNPUBLISHED FEDERAL OPINIONS DECIDED IN THE DISTRICT HAVING AN EFFECT ON THE INTERPRETATION OR INVALIDATIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTES WHICH HAVE BEEN SENT TO HIM BY THE CHIEF FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator WILSON from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

S. 109 (Word version) -- Senators Thomas, Ryberg and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-9-17 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PROCESS SERVER MAY SERVE A SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, OR OTHER JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS ON SUNDAYS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator COURTNEY from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a favorable report on:

S. 127 (Word version) -- Senator Passailaigue: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 61-4-510, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIAL RETAIL BEER AND WINE PERMITS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE FEES COLLECTED MAY BE USED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 61-6-2010 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO TEMPORARY PERMITS FOR SUNDAY LIQUOR SALES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE FEES COLLECTED MAY BE USED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator HOLLAND from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a favorable report on:

S. 129 (Word version) -- Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN CHARLESTON COUNTY, SO AS TO RENAME JOHNS ISLAND 5A VOTING PRECINCT TO KIAWAH ISLAND VOTING PRECINCT.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator McCONNELL from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a favorable report on:

S. 226 (Word version) -- Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 5-1-30, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PREREQUISITES TO ISSUANCE OF A CORPORATE CERTIFICATE TO A PROPOSED MUNICIPALITY, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE AREA SEEKING TO BE INCORPORATED TO BE CONTIGUOUS, AND PROVIDE THAT CONTIGUITY IS NOT DESTROYED BY AN INTERVENING NAVIGABLE WATERWAY, MARSHLAND, OR LOWLAND WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY INCORPORATED OR ANNEXED, AND PROVIDE THAT THE NAVIGABLE WATERWAY, MARSHLAND, OR LOWLAND DOES NOT PRECLUDE IT FROM BEING USED BY ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY TO ESTABLISH CONTIGUITY FOR PURPOSES OF AN INCORPORATION OR ANNEXATION PROVIDED THE DISTANCE FROM HIGHLAND TO HIGHLAND OF THE AREA BEING INCORPORATED OR ANNEXED IS NOT GREATER THAN ONE MILE.

Senator HOLLAND asked unanimous consent to recommit the Bill to the Committee on Judiciary, retaining its place on the Calendar.

There was no objection.

Senator HOLLAND from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a favorable report on:

S. 247 (Word version) -- Senators Leatherman and McGill: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-260, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VOTING PRECINCTS IN FLORENCE COUNTY, SO AS TO REDESIGNATE THESE PRECINCTS AND DESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER ON WHICH THE LINES OFTHESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND TO REPEAL SECTION 7-7-265, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PLACES IN FLORENCE COUNTY.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

S. 308 (Word version) -- Senators Passailaigue, McConnell, Washington, Ford, Mescher, Ravenel, Branton, Grooms, Alexander, Anderson, Bryan, Cork, Courson, Courtney, Drummond, Elliott, Fair, Giese, Glover, Gregory, Hayes, Holland, Hutto, Jackson, Land, Leatherman, Leventis, Martin, Matthews, McGill, Moore, O'Dell, Patterson, Peeler, Rankin, Reese, Russell, Ryberg, Saleeby, Setzler, Short, J. Verne Smith, Thomas, Waldrep and Wilson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND THANK DR. JAMES B. EDWARDS UPON HIS RETIREMENT FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE AS PRESIDENT OF THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO THE NATION THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER.

Returned with concurrence.

Received as information.

S. 345 (Word version) -- Senator Passailaigue: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE LOLLIE B. HARPER FOR HER LIFELONG PROMOTION OF PROFESSIONALISM AND SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPATION IN THE FIELD OF ACCOUNTING AND TO RECOGNIZE HER DEDICATION AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ACCOUNTANTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

Returned with concurrence.

Received as information.

S. 346 (Word version) -- Senators Drummond, Holland, Saleeby, J. Verne Smith, Land, Setzler, Leatherman, Leventis, McConnell, Moore, Peeler, Bryan, Courson, Giese, Matthews, Thomas, Wilson, Patterson, Russell, McGill, O'Dell, Passailaigue, Washington, Reese, Hayes, Courtney, Cork, Elliott, Ford, Glover, Gregory, Jackson, Martin, Mescher, Rankin, Ryberg, Short, Waldrep, Alexander, Fair, Hutto, Anderson, Ravenel, Branton and Grooms: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION INVITING HIS EXCELLENCY, JAMES H. HODGES, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION AT 7:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1999, IN THE HALL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Returned with concurrence.

Received as information.

At 12:22 P.M., on motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Senate receded from business until 6:45 P.M.

The Senate reassembled at 6:45 P.M. and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

The PRESIDENT appointed Senators ALEXANDER, ANDERSON, BRANTON, JACKSON, RAVENEL and SHORT to escort the Honorable James H. Hodges, Governor of South Carolina, and members of his party to the House of Representatives for the Joint Assembly.

At 6:55 P.M., on motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Senate receded from business for the purpose of attending the Joint Assembly.

At 7:00 P.M., the Senate appeared in the Hall of the House.

The PRESIDENT of the Senate called the Joint Assembly to order and announced that it had convened under the terms of S. 346, a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both Houses.

The Honorable James H. Hodges and members of his party were escorted to the rostrum by Senators ALEXANDER, ANDERSON, BRANTON, JACKSON, RAVENEL and SHORT and Representatives Haskins, Bailey, G. Brown, Lee, McKay and Gamble.

The PRESIDENT of the Senate introduced the Honorable James H. Hodges, Governor of the State of South Carolina.

The Governor addressed the Joint Assembly as follows:

Mr. Speaker... Mr. President... Ladies and Gentlemen of the General Assembly... Distinguished Guests.   It feels a little bit like coming home tonight... As I look out over the floor where I worked for 11 years... I see so many familiar faces.

Senator John Drummond... what an honor to be able to stand with you. A true war hero... ace fighter pilot, and prison camp survivor.
You are just the kind of ally I want in the fight to make our schools better.

Representative Terry Haskins... welcome back.

I value the time we've spent working on important issues... like government restructuring. And I am personally inspired by your own fight for your health. Your presence here is a daily reminder to all of us of the primary importance of our family... and friends.

As we begin a new administration... I look forward to working with... and introducing the many new faces of South Carolina who will help.

One of them is here with us tonight ... Michael Tecklenburg.

Michael's story should inspire us all. When he was born... Michael's parents were told he was mentally retarded. At age four, doctors learned the truth... Michael is deaf.

Through a life-long series of educational challenges, Michael kept at it... insisting on being a full partner in his own education... eventually becoming the first deaf student to graduate from the Columbia University School of Law.

As our Washington representative... Michael will work to advance South Carolina's interests in the nation's capitol.
Governors making a state-of-the-state address typically sound like a speaker at a testimonial dinner. Lots of grandiose rhetoric, patting yourself on the back, praise for all that's been accomplished... with maybe a hint or two about the future.

Not here. Not tonight.

My friends, we face serious problems in South Carolina. We don't have the luxury to contentedly sit back and rest on our laurels. We need to solve these problems and we need to solve these problems starting right now.

One week ago, I stood on the State House steps and asked you to join me in a crusade for South Carolina's children. I said that... working together... we could put South Carolina on a march to greatness.

But to paraphrase an ancient saying, a march of a thousand miles must begin with the very first steps. We must take those first steps tonight, my friends, because for too many children in South Carolina, the state of our State is not bright.
Just look at the sobering statistics in the national Kid's Count Report.

South Carolina's rankings are dismal. Forty-seventh in infant mortality. Forty-fifth for children living in poverty. And when they add up everything that measures a child's health and welfare, we are forty-eighth... Forty-eighth!

And what happens when these kids get to school? For most, the situation doesn't get any better. In South Carolina, we face today a $4 billion problem with substandard school buildings.

During my campaign, as I walked through schools I heard horror stories about insulation falling through the ceiling... puddles in the hallway from dripping pipes... bathroom fixtures broken off or inoperable... dingy, makeshift classrooms beyond repair.

Superintendent Rhett Dean tells me that in Marion School District 3, he'd like to produce students ready to take on the scientific and technical challenges of the 21st Century. But he's got science labs so out of date his students have no chance to compete.

These aren't isolated examples. This is the state of our schools.

Sure there are some so-called "rich" districts. But so many families are moving into those communities that children privileged to live there are rewarded with crowded, portable classrooms.

Superintendent Frank Vail in Lexington District 4 can tell you about the challenges of growth. He's already got the equivalent of an entire school in portables... and his district is growing by 150 to 200 students a year.

My friends, I propose an agreement... an agreement that we all begin tonight to improve the state of our State... by improving the state of our children's education.

Now, I want to speak directly to the parents of South Carolina's children.

Many parents think that educating our children is the government's responsibility. They couldn't be more wrong.

Government can hire teachers and buy educational software and computers and textbooks and facilities. But government can't do it all.

You can't buy educational excellence.   Education isn't something that's done to your children. Education is something that's done by your children and with your children. Parents can't drop their children off at school like they do their dry cleaning and then expect their kids to come back from school at the end of the day all well starched and nicely folded to be put away until tomorrow.

Excellence in education only happens when parents join government and teachers and students to make it happen.

Parents, join us in our crusade for our children.

I propose that during this school year... and at the beginning of each school year... every parent sign a "Compact with Our Children"... a pledge to set high standards for ourselves as partners in our children's education.

We've got to set the bar high... teachers, students, and parents share in the responsibility to set... and live up to high standards. That's what accountability is all about.

What do we need from you?

A pledge that you will require regular and punctual school attendance. A pledge you will read to your young children, and encourage the older ones to read for themselves. A pledge to provide a quiet, well-lighted study area, adequate rest, food, and a healthy environment. A pledge to support school activities by volunteering, visiting the classroom, and attending parent-teacher conferences.

I'll make sure a copy of this "Compact with Our Children" gets to every parent of South Carolina's public school children. I urge each of you to sign the compact to help us set higher standards in education.
Members of the General Assembly... there are things you can do to help our schools.

Let's get specific.

First, we must adopt a state lottery with the proceeds constitutionally committed to education.

An education lottery will generate at least $150 million dollars a year for our children. That's $150 million above and beyond any other existing state funding for education.

If we need a reminder why those dollars are so important... look around this familiar old building.

The renovation of the State House and this chamber, completed just months ago, is a beautiful tribute to the importance of government. We cannot send our children a message that the condition of their schools is any less important.

Each day in session, you sit at custom-made workstations... work with the help of personal laptop computers. You realized lawmakers can't do 21st Century business with 19th century tools and technology.

Our children's access to the latest tools and technology for learning cannot be any less of a priority.

Let us begin by pledging to pass a joint resolution to place a lottery referendum on the ballot in the year 2000.

With lottery dollars, we can build the 21st Century schools our kids need. We can get them out of those overcrowded classrooms.

In our sister state of Georgia, lottery dollars are already paying big education dividends. Since 1993, almost 400,000 Georgia students have shared more than $600 million in HOPE scholarship money.

This year alone, 61,000 Georgia children will attend pre-kindergarten programs funded by lottery dollars.

And now, more than 44 percent of secondary school classrooms in Georgia are computer-equipped. Before the lottery, that number was two percent.

I know some of you here tonight don't favor a lottery. But I admire the statesmanship of people like Senator John Courson... and Representative Joe Neal, who, while personally opposed, recognize that the lottery issue must ultimately be decided by all South Carolinians next year.

But South Carolina children can't wait until the year 2000 for us to move ahead. They're looking for leadership tonight. Education must be our number one budget priority this year.

This marvelous building has seen great strides in education funding before... witness Gov. Dick Riley's programs in the 1980's.

But then, our priority for school funding fell... and school performance flattened out.   It's time to take another giant step.   I'm requesting the General Assembly dedicate fully one half of the available dollars coming to the general fund and the EIA to educate our children from kindergarten through twelfth grade. This represents increased educational spending of $380 million.

This $380 million will jump-start us on the march to educational greatness.

Let's use some of these dollars to cut class size. Today our teachers in kindergarten through third grade are often teaching twenty or more kids in a class.

My own son, Luke, attended kindergarten with 25 children in his class. No teacher can give the individual attention every child deserves in classes of that size.

We've got to get that ratio down to a manageable level. Let's shoot this year for an average of no more than 17 children for every teacher in kindergarten through third grade. That's still too many, but it's a good first step on the way to 15 to 1... that's where you can begin to see real performance gains.

Decreased class size demands more good teachers. To assist in solving this problem, I propose we turn to our corps of retired teachers.

As the law stands, those veteran educators take their experience home... or to post-retirement teaching jobs in Georgia or North Carolina. We can change the retirement law without jeopardizing our retirement system. Let's give our school districts the flexibility to keep some of our most experienced teachers in the classroom.

And while we're at it, let's recognize the value of our current teachers to the future of our State by giving teachers a pay raise that, for the first time, will give them a salary that is $300 above the Southeastern average.

I'm tired of South Carolina being at the bottom of the nation in SAT scores.

Other states use special courses to prepare students for the SAT. I propose we take $25 million of that $380 million to buy laptop computers and SAT review software programs.

Then assign those take-home computers to high school students studying to take the test. Let's take the steps necessary to prepare our kids for the SAT. Let's raise their standards.

Of all the goals I hope to realize during my term of office, nothing would give me greater personal satisfaction than to see our current kindergarten students complete the third grade as good readers.

Reading skills form the foundation for all other learning. That foundation must be in place by the end of the early grades.

That's why I'm proposing a Governor's Institute of Reading. The institute will bring to South Carolina the nation's leading reading experts, promote reading through grants to local schools, provide the best professional development for reading teachers, and promote a world-class collaborative reading effort.

We need to teach our children that the most valuable possession a kid can have is not a new pair of Nikes or a Game Boy... it's a library card.   Tonight, kindergarten students from Rosewood Elementary School are with us. Kids, I will visit your school three years from now. I look forward to seeing confident readers... students who are reading at their grade level and beyond because of our focus on this important skill.

Reducing class size, recruiting more good teachers, preparing students for the SAT, building better readers... these are specific proposals to solve specific problems. But we don't have all the answers here in Columbia.

Let's be innovative.

I'm proposing tonight that we budget $125 million our schools can use to build 21st Century schools... to help build more classrooms, homework centers, or alternative schools.

These dollars will give educators at the local level the flexibility to solve specific problems that plague schools statewide.

Now, I want to speak directly to our business community... foundation directors... community leaders.

We all know that children need a foundation upon which to build a successful and meaningful life.   That's why I'm calling for the establishment of what I call South Carolina First Steps... my program to assure that all children enter school healthy and ready to learn.

I've modeled South Carolina First Steps on North Carolina's successful program called "Smart Start"... a program that won the Ford Foundation's Innovation in Government award.

South Carolina First Steps is a community based initiative that will bring together the expertise of state and local agencies... churches... parents... teachers... and businesses to identify children's needs and find ways to address them.

South Carolina First Steps will promote better child care... coordinate children's health services... and help parents help their children.

We can begin this first year with $20 million from state budget funds. But South Carolina First Steps will only work if business leaders, foundation directors and community leaders commit their time, talents and financial resources to make it work.

We're on our way. Joe Anderson, President of Bell South in South Carolina, has signed on to chair the South Carolina First Steps Advisory Council. Soon, we'll announce more top-rank civic leaders who have agreed to support this program. It's commitments like these that ensure South Carolina First Steps will pay huge dividends for generations to come.

My proposals tonight focus on our crusade to improve our public schools. But before we leave the subject of education, I want to speak to the students and families of students at our state colleges and universities.

You, too, will share in the benefits of increased educational funding, including proceeds from a state lottery... lottery money to provide stable funding for merit-based scholarships and expand our need-based scholarships.

In addition, we will address the need for new buildings and other facilities at our colleges and universities.

Funding for education must be our number one priority. But it's certainly not our only concern.

My fellow South Carolinians, I want you to be safe in your homes and communities.

That's why we're planning innovative crime prevention programs. Lexington County offers an example.

There, two years ago, Judge Billy Keesley convened South Carolina's first drug court. Offenders have no history of violence... and have committed non-violent crimes to get money for their addiction.

Instead of costly incarceration, those convicted are sentenced to hundreds of hours of community service. They're tested and re-tested for drug use. Any hint of illegal drugs means instant jail time.

This tough program is getting results. Former drug abusers are beating their addiction... and heading away from a life of crime. I encourage the General Assembly to establish drug courts statewide to fight the war on drugs.

As the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I support sentencing guidelines. The bad guys need to know... if they do the crime, they do the time. Speaker David Wilkins' sentencing bill, introduced last week, is a major step in the right direction.

Let me make another point tonight about law enforcement. I pledge to you that the operators of every business in South Carolina will be on the right side of the law.

Every business, including video poker.

I will sign an executive order authorizing SLED Chief Robert Stewart to begin immediate criminal background checks on all persons who apply for video poker licenses in South Carolina.

Early this month, I outlined for legislative leaders my proposal to tax the proceeds of video poker. I believe this industry should contribute $200 million a year to our State in taxes and fees. This represents roughly one-third of the video gaming industry's net profits.

As long as it's legal, I will lead the fight to make sure video poker is tightly regulated and fairly taxed.

But I believe the legality of video poker should ultimately be decided by the voters of South Carolina in the next general election.... thumbs up, or thumbs down... let the people decide.

I want to lower taxes for our senior citizens. This generation defended us in war, raised families, paid lots of taxes... built our great State. They've given so much... now it's time to give back to them.

I propose tonight we take the next step to wipe out income taxes on retirement income. Let's raise the income tax exemption for seniors to $20,000. That alone eliminates income tax for 58 percent of our seniors 65 and older.

I'm a businessman. I've found that successful companies are companies that encourage productivity. State government is no exception. It's time for South Carolina to reward its hard-working employees. Let's join the mainstream by helping employees save toward their retirement.

I propose we match up to $300 of any state employees' annual contribution to their 401K retirement plan.

In addition, I am recommending a three percent pay raise for state employees.

Last week I pledged that the Hodges administration will be a pro-business administration. The living proof is here tonight... my nominee for Commerce Secretary, Charlie Way, and his top deputy, Wayne Sterling.

Charlie is universally acknowledged as a businessman's businessman. Wayne, who gets the credit for helping land BMW for our State, was described last week by the Wall Street Journal as a "corporate recruiting ace."

My strong economic development agenda is coupled with a strong conservation ethic. We made an environmental mistake several years ago. South Carolina should never, never have pulled out of the Southeast Compact for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management.

The results... disaster. Instead of every region in the country handling its own waste... it's dumped right here.

Step number one: We must explore joining the Southeast Compact again. Senators Leventis and Courson are exploring this option.

But we're not signing our membership card without two guarantees.

First, establish a definite date after which South Carolina will no longer be the national and regional landfill for nuclear waste.   Second, the Southeast Compact must hold those North Carolina tarheels to the fire.

If North Carolina fails to build a replacement site, we're prepared to tell them and others... take your waste elsewhere.

In my inaugural address, I predicted that South Carolina is poised to march into a 21st Century of unrivaled prosperity, boundless opportunity, and most importantly, the golden triumph of education over ignorance.

It's time to begin.

Pass the education lottery referendum... put education first in this year's budget... help South Carolina's children with their first steps... rein in video poker... reward our senior citizens and hard-working state employees.

Join me tonight...join me to take these first steps on our march to greatness.

Thank you.

The purpose of the Joint Assembly having been accomplished, the PRESIDENT declared it adjourned, whereupon the Senate returned to the Chamber and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

On motion of Senator McGILL, with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of Mr. John Scott (Jack) McGill, Jr. of Kingstree, S.C.

At 7:38 P.M., on motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M.

This web page was last updated on Friday, June 26, 2009 at 9:41 A.M.