Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 10:00 a.m.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by Rev. Charles E. Seastrunk, Jr. as follows:

Our thought for today is from Psalm 107:19: "Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble and he saved them from their distress."
Let us pray. O merciful Father, thank You for the power and gift of prayer. We pray for each and everyone in this place, that You will guide them in wisdom, courage and integrity. Be with them and heal all their distress and worry. Look in favor upon our Nation, President, State and her leaders. Cause Your face to shine on our defenders of freedom and keep them safe. O Lord, hear our prayer. Amen.

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

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

Rep. PERRY moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Eugene F. McManus, M.D. of Aiken, which was agreed to.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., May 17, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Free Conference on S. 212:

S. 212 (Word version) -- Senators McGill, Grooms, Ford, McConnell, Land, Leatherman, Moore, Reese, Drummond, Elliott, Peeler, O'Dell, Fair, Malloy, Leventis, Verdin, Jackson, Short, Patterson, Richardson, Gregory, Courson, Hayes, Ryberg, Anderson, Setzler, Alexander, Sheheen, Hawkins, J. V. Smith, Cromer, Martin, Mescher, Knotts,

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., May 17, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Senators Martin, Knotts and Sheheen of the Committee of Conference on the part of the Senate on S. 165:

S. 165 (Word version) -- Senators Elliott, Hayes, Alexander, Fair and Richardson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-33-245, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ALCOHOL TAXES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR AN EXCISE TAX ON THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR BY THE DRINK AND TO PROVIDE FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUND TO REVISE THE AMOUNT OF THE DISTRIBUTION TO COUNTIES THAT MUST BE USED FOR ALCOHOL EDUCATION AND ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG REHABILITATION BUT TO PROVIDE THAT IN NO CASE MAY THE AMOUNT PROVIDED BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., May 17, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 596:

S. 596 (Word version) -- Senator Sheheen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-7-10, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE USE OF THE UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKET BY ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO AUTOMATE THE ISSUANCE OF A UNIFORM TICKET IF APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT,

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., May 17, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

S. 814 (Word version) -- Senators Land and Hutto: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3365, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TEN-YEAR CORPORATE INCOME TAX MORATORIUM ALLOWED FOR CREATING AND MAINTAINING AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED FULL-TIME NEW JOBS IN COUNTIES THAT MEET CERTAIN UNEMPLOYMENT OR PER CAPITA INCOME REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM TO A TAXPAYER OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE FOR THE MORATORIUM BUT FOR THE REQUIREMENT THAT AT LEAST NINETY PERCENT OF THE TAXPAYER'S TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THIS STATE MUST BE IN THE MORATORIUM COUNTY AND ALLOW THE MORATORIUM WHEN THAT TAXPAYER CREATES AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED NEW JOBS AND INVESTS AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS IN A MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN A SECOND COUNTY DESIGNATED AS DISTRESSED, LEAST DEVELOPED, OR UNDERDEVELOPED WITH THE NINETY PERCENT OVERALL LIMITATION APPLYING TO INVESTMENT IN ONE OR BOTH OF THESE COUNTIES, TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM SIMILARLY WHEN THE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED WOULD ALLOW THE TAXPAYER A FIFTEEN-YEAR MORATORIUM, TO PROVIDE THAT A CHANGE IN BUSINESS FORM DURING THE MORATORIUM PERIOD DOES NOT AFFECT THE MORATORIUM, TO DEFINE "TAXPAYER" TO INCLUDE A GROUP OF AFFILIATED TAXPAYERS, AND TO MAKE CONFORMING AMENDMENTS; AND TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-44-30, 4-12-30, AND 4-29-67, ALL AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEE-IN-LIEU OF TAX SIMPLICATION ACT OF 1997 AND THE PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR AND CALCULATION OF FEES-IN-LIEU OF TAXES UNDER THE FEE-IN-LIEU OF TAX STATUTES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN "ENHANCED INVESTMENT" FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEE-IN-LIEU OF TAX SIMPLICATION ACT OF 1997 INCLUDES AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS SUCH A PROJECT IS DEFINED IN THE STATE GENERAL OBLIGATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOND ACT AND FOR WHICH THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE HAS ISSUED

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., May 17, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 573:

S. 573 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Verdin, Rankin, Courson, Elliott and Ford: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-3-240, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OFFICERS WHO MAY BE REMOVED BY THE GOVERNOR FOR CAUSE, SO AS TO DELETE THE COMMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, TO ADD THE DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY; TO ESTABLISH CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH DIRECTORS MAY BE REMOVED; TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-60, RELATING TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR CERTAIN LOSSES RESULTING FROM CONDUCT OF A DIRECTOR OF THE AUTHORITY; TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-70, RELATING TO THE LIABILITY OF A GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A DIRECTOR OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY IS NOT IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN CONDUCT AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE INSURANCE RESERVE FUND IS PROHIBITED FROM PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 58-3-530, RELATING TO THE

The following was received from the Senate:

Columbia, S.C., May 17, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it nonconcurs in the amendments proposed by the House to H. 3499:

H. 3499 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Wilkins, Townsend, Leach, Bales, G. R. Smith, J. R. Smith, Battle, Cobb-Hunter, Neilson, Clark, Harrison, Skelton, Moody-Lawrence, Rice, Harvin, Ott, J. E. Smith, Merrill, Mack, Hinson, Cotty, Norman, Talley, Chellis, Hardwick, Clemmons, Bailey, Dantzler, Walker, Cooper, E. H. Pitts, Ballentine, Bowers, Huggins and Hagood: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 10, ENTITLED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS, TO TITLE 59 SO AS TO ESTABLISH PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION A STUDENT IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH FIFTH GRADE MUST RECEIVE EACH WEEK ON A PHASED-IN BASIS, PROVIDE FOR A MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PROVIDE FOR A PHYSICAL EDUCATION ACTIVITY DIRECTOR, PROVIDE CERTAIN NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, PROVIDE THAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SHALL REMOVE CERTAIN FOOD AND DRINKS FROM VENDING MACHINES, PROVIDE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS MUST HAVE TO EAT LUNCH, PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DISTRICT LEVEL AND AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEVEL COORDINATED SCHOOL HEALTH ADVISORY COUNCIL AND PROVIDE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES, PROVIDE FOR NUTRITIONAL EDUCATION, AND PROVIDE A MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

On motion of Rep. TOWNSEND, the House insisted upon its amendments.

Whereupon, the Chair appointed Reps. WALKER, ANTHONY and TOWNSEND to the Committee of Conference on the part of the House and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The SPEAKER ordered the following veto printed in the Journal:

May 17, 2005
The Honorable David H. Wilkins, Speaker
South Carolina House of Representatives
508 Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am returning H. 3716 , R. 73, the FY Year 2005-06 General Appropriations Act, with the line-item vetoes detailed below. This budget contains $707 million in new revenue, an increase of 13.4 percent over last year. This Bill represents over a 9.1 percent increase in the expenditure of state tax dollars over last year's budget.

Although there was much fanfare about last year's vetoes and pork, those vetoes were ultimately less about individual spending items than about the constitutional requirement of a balanced budget. As you remember, I saw those vetoes as the last available tool to help extinguish the remaining $16 million on what had been a $155 million unconstitutional deficit.

Given the amount of new money coming into our state government, the vetoes enumerated on the following pages are in the same vein - less about the underlying vetoes than two larger themes. First, our state's practice of simply spending whatever comes in creates an up and down pattern of spending that I think is harmful to agencies, the people who work there, and the citizens they serve. In years like the upcoming fiscal year, that pattern also grows government at a rate

Second, these vetoes are about the principle of doing first things first. I believe we should pay back trust funds borrowed when times were tough before we begin new and additional spending. Families across our State live by this principle. When times are tough, they may borrow from the proverbial cookie jar. Small businesses do the same, and, in both cases, when times get better, the first order of business in families or businesses that manage their affairs prudently is to put that money back in the cookie jar. We should do the same in managing our financial affairs in Columbia.

These vetoes reflect an attempt to meet in the middle in replenishing trust funds. For that reason, we do not propose in these vetoes what I would like to do, which is completely repay all trust funds and reserve funds. Instead, we propose a combined total of approximately $96 million in vetoes in this Appropriations Act and the Capital Reserve Fund Appropriations Act. These savings, which combined with the existing $117 million of trust fund replenishment proposed by the General Assembly, brings us to over $210 million in repayments in this budget cycle. This would pay down about half of trust fund borrowing and leave a trust and reserve fund balance of approximately $226 million.

It goes without saying that after these balances have been extinguished, it is certainly within the General Assembly's prerogative to fund every one of the projects outlined in this Appropriations Act. Putting the repayment of trust funds before new spending is important not only because of the principle of first things first, but also because I very strongly believe it is necessary that we get our financial affairs in the best shape possible given the different threats to our national economy on which I will elaborate later in this veto message.

This administration's first goal when 707 million new dollars stream into Columbia is to give some back to the South Carolinians sending it. As you know, we pushed with Speaker Wilkins and many of you for the passage of a broad tax cut which we have long believed key to

Since only $2.5 million of the $707 million in new money is being used to reduce taxes in this budget year, our belief is that we ought to take as much of that money as possible and repay trust funds before we begin new and additional spending. Since the economic downturn of 2001, roughly $500 million was borrowed and diverted from trust and reserve funds to avoid deeper budget cuts. Over the last two years, total state spending has increased by $1 billion, yet $321 million remains to be repaid to trust and reserve accounts.

On this front, the core difficulty I have with this budget is that out of the $707 million in new taxes coming to Columbia, only 16.7 percent is dedicated to trust fund replenishment, while 83.3 percent is allocated to spending. Committing nearly $96 million to additional trust and reserve fund repayment still leaves us with enough money to fund the higher spending commitments contemplated in this Appropriations Act for core government services in education, health and law enforcement. It would leave us with $190 million more for education, $80 million more for Medicaid, and $37 million more for law enforcement than last year. Even after subtracting ALL trust and reserve fund repayment, there is an additional $185 million for any other items the General Assembly wanted to fund.

With these priorities in mind, my vetoes are based on three simple ideas: (1) over time government shouldn't grow faster than the growth in our population plus inflation; (2) tax dollars returned to the private sector stimulate economic growth; and (3) money taken from trust and reserve accounts should be quickly restored.

Before I expand on the application of these three principles to this budget, I want to first acknowledge many of the positive actions the Members of the General Assembly have taken in this Appropriations Act and thank you for joining me in prioritizing the areas of education, health care, and law enforcement.

This budget also meets our goal of fully funding the increase in health care costs so state employees are given a reprieve from the tremendous increases in premiums over the past several years. Additionally, we are pleased to see a partially targeted pay raise for state employees, but would hope that we can go further in the future in tying pay increases to performance instead of across-the-board increases.

Early on we pledged to work diligently to restore the severe personnel cuts endured by our law enforcement agencies over the previous years. We are pleased to see the Legislature join us in that effort by adding 100 new state troopers, as well as additional officers at SLED, Corrections, Department of Juvenile Justice, and the Department of Natural Resources.

While there are other areas that we are pleased to see funded in this year's budget, two worth singling out are the restoration of critical funding at the Department of Social Services and first time funding of a system to allow for electronic campaign filing for candidates for public office.

This year's budget process started with my office creating a comprehensive inventory of over 1,500 separate and distinct activities of government, which we then prioritized and ranked. In fact, our activity-based process actually follows the path laid out by the legislative leadership when they announced their budget reform package in January 2001. We embraced several of their proposed changes including zero-based budgeting, sunset provisions, limiting growth in government spending, and curtailing the use of "one-time money" for recurring needs. While we are appreciative of the general comments regarding the budget process we followed in putting forth

In contrast to our activity approach, much of the supplemental spending in this budget is based on the whims of individual legislators. For instance, in the Senate floor debate on this budget, one Senator requested $15,000 to help restore General Francis Marion's Tomb, which lies in his senatorial district. Senator Leatherman responded that the amount should be increased to $50,000 just to make sure it was done right. Of course, the higher amount was adopted. This sort of budget writing results in increased spending without any weighing of the relative need for a particular activity. Our activity-based approach would have weighed the relative need to restore the tomb against the other 1,500 activities the state purchases.

1.   Limiting Government Growth

One of the fundamental problems with this budget is that it allows government to grow at 9.1 percent after payments to trust funds are deducted from the $707 million in new revenue. Some could even argue that this budget grows government over 13 percent since the trust fund money was spent on government programs in previous years. This sort of growth in government takes vital capital out of the private sector, which in turn hampers job creation and expansion of our economy. While members of the General Assembly are able to spend 9.1 percent more than last year, taxpayers in South Carolina will see their personal incomes grow by only 3.8 percent. In other words, this year in our State some are proposing government grow at more than twice the rate of the incomes of the people who pay taxes to fund this budget!

In FY 2000, our strong economy was producing significant tax revenues for our State's total budget of $13.4 billion. In spite of our recent economic downturn, the recent Appropriations Act would increase total spending to $18.2 billion - more than 40 percent higher than that benchmark. This $4.8 billion increase in spending in just six years averages out to a state government growth of 6.7 percent a year.

2.   Stimulating Economic Growth

A primary focus of this Administration will always be to give the taxpayers of this State tax relief that will create jobs and improve our economy. Currently, our State has effectively the highest income tax rate in the Southeast, and it places us at a severe disadvantage in the global competition for high-paying jobs. Unfortunately, this year's budget resulted in a tremendous amount of growth in spending, but, as was mentioned earlier, only $2.5 million in income tax relief came from a pot of $707 million in new money. I am greatly disappointed that the Senate refused to pass a larger tax cut, but I'd give credit to the House and its leadership for the way they supported us in our efforts to give relief to all taxpayers of this State.

Numerous items in this budget have exceptional merit; however, since more of the new money was not returned to the taxpayers, our second highest priority is to hold the line on spending to protect the financial security of the State. The question then must be asked - should we grow government by 13 percent in this budget when state revenues are expected to grow at an annual average rate of only 3.6 percent over the next ten years? The answer to me is simple. We must keep our spending in line with our revenue projections and population plus inflation. Out of control spending today will hinder our ability to grow our economy in the future.

My frustration and concern for the taxpayer does not stop here. I also feel compelled to express my deep concerns about the proposed increase of seven cents on the gas tax recently passed by the Senate Finance Committee, before the ink on this budget was even dry. I question why certain members of the Senate, during a year of enormous revenue growth, feel the need to ask for even more money from the taxpayers of this State - in fact, 42 percent more than is

3.   Repaying Trust and Reserve Accounts

As you know, during the budget debate and as new monies have come into the state's coffers, I advocated for more new dollars towards replenishing trust funds. Both bodies took a step in the right direction on this front - dedicating about $117 million to these accounts. However, this still leaves the state with a $321 million trust fund obligation. On my recent visit to New York, credit rating agencies also expressed the same concerns that I have regarding trust funds in addition to a problematic accounting practice known as the GAAP Fund Deficit. To this end, I want to commend the House - and specifically Representative Bobby Harrell - for following the lead of Treasurer Patterson, Comptroller Eckstrom, and myself in setting the stage to deal with the GAAP problem in this year's budget. While the stage is set, we must also be wary that the GAAP problem is not completely resolved as future fiscal years will continue to carry a negative unreserved balance unless we remain committed to paying off the initial negative balance of $105 million as outlined in Comptroller Eckstrom's recent letter to the Board of Economic Advisors (BEA).

State revenues are directly tied to how well our economy performs. With any budget process, it is vital to be conscious of the surrounding economic environment. As I noted in my State of the State address earlier this year, I believe our economy is still at risk and we must continue to prepare ourselves for the next financial storm. I believe we must be mindful of some key economic areas now and in the future when preparing our State's spending plan.

National Trade Deficit

First, South Carolina's economy is about more than just the financial and industrial situation within our borders, it is also about the effects

Let me use China as an example. This country's exports to the United States have grown by 1,600 percent over the past 15 years. However, U.S. exports to China have grown by only 415 percent. Even more to the point, the world's largest corporation, Wal-Mart, currently does business with 6,000 worldwide suppliers and 5,000 of them (or over 80 percent) are located in China. My point is our country and many hard-working folks in this State are feeling the impact of a nation like China. Any textile worker in the Upstate can tell you this as our manufacturing sector has been hit hard with the loss of 82,000 jobs in the past 10 years.

A Weak Dollar

Second, our effort on the war front has rapidly increased U.S. spending. The federal deficit is expected to be over $350 billion for fiscal year 2005. On top of that, the national account deficit is remaining at a record level - currently at almost six percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product. These two economic components are leading us towards an increasingly weak dollar.

Rising Gas Prices and Increased Consumer Debt

Lastly, consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of all economic activity in this country. There are currently two significant burdens on the consumer that are having a negative impact in our state and nation - the price of gasoline and rising consumer debt.

All South Carolinians have felt the effects of paying an all-time high of over $2 a gallon for gasoline as a core result of the price of oil remaining above $50 a barrel. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the situation is going to get much better. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates the national average for a gallon of gas will be $2.17 for this summer - and during a time in which the Senate is considering increasing the gas tax by 42 percent. As a consequence, consumers will become increasingly careful where each dollar is being spent.

So the bottom line is that I am concerned with the future of our economy. Throw into the mix a volatile stock market, a state unemployment rate that is the third worst in the nation, and a state income that is only 83 percent of the national average, and we have even more of a reason to be cautious of what the future brings. These economic pressures will likely slow consumer spending and could produce a dramatic drag on the state's economy. I believe we may be seeing the beginning stages of this drag. In fact, the BEA touched on this very subject in its last meeting stating sales tax revenue was $25 million behind schedule just for the month of April - a true sign that consumers are spending less.

If the economy does not rebound and we don't prepare ourselves for the future with the proper measures, we are bound to face the dreadful events of the past few years - an under funded Base Student Cost, Medicaid services taken away from citizens, and not enough police officers to protect our citizens. For this reason, I believe holding the line on spending in government and making sure that we are prepared with the proper reserves are both vitally important. I also believe now is the time to start this preparation.

To this end, any vetoed dollar that is sustained by you will be a dollar that is available to put our fiscal house in order. I ask you to carefully deliberate each veto so that we may have an open and healthy debate on the merits of strengthening the fiscal integrity of this State. All programs have some degree of merit; however, I'd ask each of you to consider every veto with my belief that these items should be invested first in replenishing trust funds. Keeping with this approach would still allow state government to grow at nearly seven percent and to spend over $500 million in new money.

Families make these sorts of decisions every day in South Carolina. They might like to buy everything in Wal-Mart, Home Depot or Sears, but they don't because they don't have the money. Not purchasing a good or service doesn't mean the shopper views the item as bad. They just view it as something they can't purchase at the moment. We believe these vetoes represent spending that can come at a later date - after we have paid back money borrowed during tough times. We also think prudent families don't grow their expenditures at nine percent when their income is growing at less than half that amount.

I.   Vetoes of Part IA

Veto 1   Part IA; Section 1; page 5; Department of Education; Education Improvement Act; Standard, Teaching, Learning, Account.; Student Testing; Other Operating Expenses; $1,000,559.

In our FY 2005-06 Executive Budget, we identified several ways to lower the cost of testing students. Specifically, we identified a potential $2.6 million in savings by simply finding an assessment that is less expensive to administer. While we continue to encourage the State Department of Education to pursue a more efficient assessment, one short-term improvement can be made by simply eliminating the writing response portion of the PACT. According to the Education Oversight Committee's "Final Report of the South Carolina Task Force on Testing," potential costs savings well in excess of $1 million per year could be realized by phasing out the constructed response items on PACT. For these reasons, I am vetoing this item amounting to roughly $1 million which the department can absorb by adopting the Education Oversight Committee's proposal to eliminate the writing response portion of the PACT.

Veto 2   Part IA; Section 5A; page 25; Commission on Higher Education; Administration; Think TEC/Fastrac - Entrepreneurial Ed/Mento; $250,000.

Veto 4   Part IA; Section 5D; page 32; Clemson University; Education & General; Unrestricted; Engineering Research Centers; $791,272.

Veto 5   Part IA; Section 5E; page 35; University of Charleston; Education & General; Business - Economic Partnership Initiative; $591,550.

Veto 6   Part IA; Section 5E; page 35; University of Charleston; Education & General; Education - Effective Teaching and Learning; $501,800.

While perhaps worthy initiatives, I am vetoing these higher education items because they either fall outside the respective core missions of their agencies, represent duplicative programs, or are a low-priority for base budget increases when compared to other, more pertinent financial goals for higher education and for the State. Furthermore, under the flexibility proviso in this act, we believe these agencies can identify currently available earmarked, restricted or federal funds elsewhere in their budget to fund this item.

Veto 7   Part IA; Section 5G; page 39; Francis Marion University; Education & General; Unrestricted; Small and Minority Business Assistance; $500,000.

I am vetoing this item because it creates a duplicative business assistance program at Francis Marion University. The Department of Commerce currently staffs a small business ombudsman office to provide entrepreneurs with assistance and support from business experts. I also believe that this is an example of mission creep at a teaching college. With a tuition increase of 31 percent since 2001, university resources should be focused on classroom instruction and affordability.

Veto 8   Part IA; Section 5G; page 39; Francis Marion University; Education & General; Unrestricted; Omega Project; $56,147.

I am vetoing this item because the funds appropriated are used for voter registration efforts in the region and this is unrelated to the core

Veto 9   Part IA; Section 5KC; page 49; USC - Upstate; Education & General; Unrestricted; Other Operating Expenses; $1,000,000.

I am vetoing this item because the $1 million increase to the school's $10.7 million base budget equates to a 9.7 percent increase in spending at USC-Upstate. This far exceeds the most recent Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) inflation number of 4.6 percent. I am also hopeful that in the future the General Assembly will reconsider our proposal to limit tuition increases to a HEPI-based index to protect our students and their families from further double-digit increases in tuition.

Veto 10   Part IA; Section 5KD; page 51; USC - Beaufort Campus; Education & General; Unrestricted; Other Operating Expenses; $500,000.

I am vetoing this item because the $500,000 increase to the school's $2 million base budget equates to nearly a 25 percent increase in spending at USC-Beaufort, which is five times the current 5 percent increase in HEPI. I remain hopeful that the General Assembly will reconsider our proposal to protect our students from double-digit tuition increases.

Veto 11   Part IA; Section 5KF; page 55; USC - Salkehatchie Campus; Education & General; Unrestricted; Salkehatchie Leadership Center; $100,460.

I am vetoing this item which increases USC-Salkehatchie's budget by $100,460 for the purpose of funding its Leadership Center. The program director is a wonderful South Carolinian, and as well-intentioned as this program is, we think that it has a marginal sustained impact, and for that reason, we vetoed it in last year's budget and for two consecutive years have not proposed funding it in our Executive Budgets.

This item is a new pass-through from the Medical University of South Carolina to the Area Health Education Consortium. This program, requested by neither MUSC nor AHEC, seeks to provide funding to increase the number of dentists serving the rural populations of South Carolina. I recognize that a challenge exists in attracting dentists to practice in rural areas of the State, but in contemplating any new program, the important question we must always ask in public policy is whether or not new monies will materially impact the problem we are attempting to address. This money amounts to a little more than $5,000 per county, and this administration's view is that this figure is not enough to drive the location decisions of a young student leaving dental school. For these reasons, I am vetoing this item.

Veto 13   Part IA: Section 5N; page 67; Technical & Comprehensive Education Bd; Instructional Programs; Technical Colleges; Trident Tech-Culinary Arts; $775,000.

The need to expand this program has been well debated in the Charleston area, and it is not this administration's intent to suggest to the General Assembly that it is wrong in its objective to expand the culinary school. Our objection is simply related to its timing. If we expand this program by 105 percent at a time when we have an outstanding trust fund balance of $438 million, this administration believes it will be difficult to ask other communities around our State to hold the line in expanding programs that they believe have similar merit.

Veto 14   Part IA; Section 6; page 71; Educational Television Commission; Program and Services; Public Education; School Services; Other Operating Expenses; $20,000.

Veto 15   Part IA; Section 6; page 71; Educational Television Commission; Program and Services; Public Education; General Support and Services; Other Personal Services; $75,000.

Veto 16   Part IA; Section 6; page 72; Educational Television Commission; Program and Services; Agency Services; Local

Our Executive Budget identified a potential costs savings of $132,089 that ETV could realize by simply improving its use of technology. Though the House and Senate budgets adopted these cost savings, the Conference Committee allowed the funds to remain in the ETV budget. I am vetoing the above three sections to account for the cost-savings the agency could adopt.

Veto 17   Part IA; Section 6; page 72; Educational Television Commission; Program and Services; General Support and Services; Other Operating Expenses; $759,000.

As I identified in our Executive Budget, by increasing the fundraising efforts of the ETV endowment, improving the use of technology and requiring higher education to pay the actual costs of ETV services, ETV could realize a cost savings of $1,053,469. For this reason, I am vetoing this item amounting to just under $1 million, approximately three percent of the agency's total budget, which the agency can absorb if it adopts our cost savings proposals.

Veto 18   Part IA; Section 8; page 79; Department of Health and Human Services; Programs and Services; Other Entities Assistance; ReGenesis Community Health Center; $100,000.

This health care center has not been singled out for line-item funding in the past. While we believe this to be a worthy organization, we have consistently expressed concerns about the practice of funding individual organizations through budget line-items as this practice limits the ability of agency officials to make funding decisions for their agencies. Additionally, line items lend themselves to political influence, and we do not believe the decision to choose to fund one health care center over another should be driven by the political process.

Veto 19   Part IA; Section 9; page 85; Department of Health and Environmental Control; Programs and Services; Family Health; Access to Care; Lancaster Kershaw Health Center; $175,738.

While we also believe these to be worthy organizations, we have consistently expressed concerns about the practice of funding individual organizations through budget line-items as this practice limits the ability of agency officials to make funding decisions for their agencies. Additionally, line items lend themselves to political influence and we do not believe the decision to choose to fund one health center over another should be driven by the political process.

Veto 21   Part IA; Section 10; page 94; Department of Mental Health; Programs and Services; Support Services; Other Personal Services; $452,395.

I am vetoing this item because, as mentioned in our Executive Budget, the Department of Mental Health has already implemented an agency-wide accounting system resulting in nearly $600,000 in savings. This savings offers us the opportunity to use $452,395 for restoring trust funds while the rest can be used for other more direct services at the agency.

Veto 22   Part IA; Section 11; page 98; Department of Disabilities and Special Needs; Programs & Services; Mental Retardation Family Support Program; Children's Services; Special Olympics; $174,175.

In our FY 2005-06 Executive Budget, we proposed diverting these funds to address reducing waiting lists to move patients to Community Training Homes. Though we appreciate the efforts of both the competitors and the families who participate, this organization raises money from individuals and corporations to support many of its activities. We again propose reducing this sum to encourage total private sector support for the operations. While this program certainly has merit, ultimately we believe putting more funds towards replenishing the trust and reserve funds raided during the economic downturn must be the highest priority.

I am vetoing this item because it is a special pass through item for the Greenville Urban League which has been appropriated a total of $104,389 in both H. 3717 (Capital Reserve Fund appropriates $86,000) and H. 3716 (appropriates $18,389). We do not believe we should single out one entity when numerous other non-profit organizations which support minority and disadvantaged communities do not receive any state funds.

Veto 24   Part IA; Section 15; page 119; Department of Archives and History; Historical Services; Old Exchange Building; $150,000.

I am vetoing this item which provides funding for renovations of the Old Exchange Building. While renovating this historic building is a worthy undertaking, we believe we should get our budget on more solid ground before undertaking funding projects such as this.

Veto 25   Part IA; Section 18; page 122; Arts Commission; Statewide Arts Service; Other Operating Expenses; $125,500.

In this proposed budget, the Arts Commission administration is increased by $200,000 over FY 2004-05, a 27 percent increase. This type of administrative increase while we are trying to put the State on firmer financial setting is not appropriate. In addition, it is this type of increase that shows why we need to restructure state government, particularly merging the cultural agencies.

Veto 26   Part IA; Section 21; page 131; Forestry Commission; Administration; Other Operating Expenses; $128,520.

This Appropriations Act annualizes $1.3 million in new spending for the Forestry Commission. We believe the agency can offset this amount by the upcoming sale of over $100,000 worth of surplus property owned by the agency.

This Appropriations Act annualizes $3,553,047 in new spending for Clemson PSA, which is already larger than that of the DNR and Forestry budgets combined. For this reason, I am vetoing this item.

Veto 28   Part IA, Section 26, page 150; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Administration, Tourism Sales and Marketing, Contributions; $377,586.

The Contributions line has been included in the Appropriations Act for many years to be a flow-through line for specific entities, projects and special events. I believe that any public-private endeavor should employ an open and objective competitive process so that the most worthy projects receive public investments. Because of this belief, I signed Executive Order 2004-29 directing all Cabinet level agencies to stop the practice of pass-through funding; therefore, I am vetoing this item.

Veto 29   Part IA; Section 26; page 150; Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism; Administration; Tourism Sales & Marketing; Canadian Promotions; $85,000.

Veto 30   Part IA; Section 26; page 151; Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism; Administration; Tourism Sales & Marketing; Wildlife Expo; $175,000.

Veto 31   Part IA; Section 26; page 151; Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism; Administration; Tourism Sales & Marketing; US Youth Games; $25,000.

Veto 32   Part IA; Section 26; page 151; Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism; Administration; Recreation Planning, Eng.; Palmetto Conservation Foundation; $109,180.

Veto 33   Part IA; Section 26; page 151; Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism; Administration; Recreation Planning, Eng.; Palmetto Trails; $90,820.

Veto 35   Part IA; Section 27; page 155; Department of Commerce; Administration & Support; Business Solutions; SC Technology Alliance; $300,000.

Veto 36   Part IA; Section 27; page 155; Department of Commerce; Administration & Support; Business Development; SC World Trade Park and Education Center; $197,688.

While I believe that these regional events and projects are worthy and may deserve state support, I believe that they should be funded using a competitive grants process as opposed to political earmarks. For this reason, I am vetoing these items.

Veto 37   Part IA, Section 26, page 150; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Administration, Executive Offices, Other Personal Services; $105,700.

Veto 38   Part IA, Section 26, page 151; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Community and Economic Development, Other Operating Expenses; $285,341.

The Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism volunteered a savings of $400,000 by reducing their media placement and production rate from 14 percent to 9.5 percent. These savings were not taken in the agency's budget. Because I do not object to the entire advertising line item, I am vetoing the above lines within the agency's budget to account for the savings they are willing to take. Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so these particular items can be paid.

Veto 39   Part IA; Section 61; page 257; Adjutant General's Office; Administration; Funeral Caisson; $98,260.

I am vetoing this item because the Director of the Department of Corrections has offered to house the eight member caisson team at the Wateree Correctional Institute Prison Farm outside of Camden. This facility can absorb a great deal, if not all, of the expenses associated

Veto 40   Part IA; Section 63; page 264; Budget and Control Board; Operations and Executive Training; Internal Operations; Other Operating Expenses; $1,266,255.

Veto 41   Part IA; Section 63; page 264; Budget & Control Board; Operations and Executive Training; Executive Institute; Other Operating Expenses; $109,833.

Veto 42   Part IA; Section 63; page 266; Budget & Control Board; Budget and Analyses Division; Office of Research and Statistics; Geodetic and Mapping Survey; Other Operating Expenses; $81,467.

Veto 43   Part IA; Section 63; page 267; Budget & Control Board; Budget and Analyses Division; Office of Human Resources; Administration; Other Operating Expenses; $139,289.

Veto 44   Part IA; Section 63; page 267; Budget & Control Board; Budget and Analyses Division; Office of Human Resources; Administration; SC Leadership; $53,833.

Veto 45   Part IA; Section 63; page 268; Budget & Control Board; Budget and Analyses Division; Office of Human Resources; Human Resource Consulting; Other Operating Expenses: $683,803.

Veto 46   Part IA; Section 63; page 268; Budget and Control Board; Budget and Analyses Division; Office of Human Resources; Human Resource Development; Other Operating Expenses; $152,769.

I am vetoing these items because an extensive list of our Executive Budget cost-savings ideas proposed for the Budget and Control Board were not adopted by the General Assembly in this act. These ideas included reductions in custodial services for state offices (a cost-cutting technique proven in the private sector and at the Department of Revenue); eliminating general fund dollars for ancillary human resources functions that should be required to justify their existence by

Veto 47   Part IA; Section 63; page 276; Budget & Control Board; State CIO Division; IT Planning & Management; Other Operating Expenses; $1,872,500.

In our Executive Budget, we clearly indicated our concerns that the South Carolina Enterprise Information System (SCEIS) was too difficult and risky a project to undertake without a reformed structure for the CIO office. It appears the General Assembly will not restructure the CIO office in a meaningful way in this session. In addition, the Comptroller General's office has learned that BearingPoint, the primary contractor for the SCEIS project, has filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission explaining that they are in serious financial difficulties because of problems implementing their own company's enterprise information system. While this project offers a potential of up to $120 million dollars in annual work process savings after five years of implementation, it also brings the potential for uncontrolled expansion, cost overruns, and failure if it is not managed properly. Given the risk inherent in this project, the lack of meaningful restructuring in the CIO office, and the financial problems at BearingPoint, we feel it would be imprudent to carry forward with this project in the coming year. Therefore, I am vetoing this item.

Veto 48   Part IA; Section 64; page 281; Department of Revenue; Programs and Services; Other Operating Expenses; $2,696,538.
The Department of Revenue was appropriated $3 million in funding in FY 2004-05 for one-time technology expenses associated with enhanced collections. Because these dollars were intended for a one-

II.   Vetoes of Part 1B Temporary Provisions

Veto 49   Part 1B, Section 1.21, Department of Education, page 298; SDE: Mathematics and Science Unit of the Office of Curriculum and Standards.

I am vetoing this section because it reduces the percentage of our educational dollars that actually make it to the classroom. It also limits the flexibility of the State Department of Education's Office of Curriculum and Standards to determine the best use of curriculum development dollars by forcing the State Department of Education to allot funds for curriculum to support a particular facility. The South Carolina Aquarium is self-supporting and should find funds in its budget to support curriculum development that specifically promotes the use of its facility.

Veto 50   Part 1B, Section 5M.3, Medical University of South Carolina, page 328; MUSC: Rural Dentist Program.

Because I am line-item vetoing the funding for the Rural Dentists Initiative in Part IA, this section, setting up a new board for the purpose of dispensing the grants, is not necessary.

Veto 51   Part 1B, Section 5N.5, State Board for Technical & Comprehensive Education, page 329; TEC: Professionally Licensed Training.

This section unnecessarily restricts competition in the market for cosmetology training. If there is sufficient demand for cosmetology training in a county, and schools in the Technical Education system are willing to provide that training at a competitive price, they should be allowed to do so. Competition should lower costs and increase options for students, making it easier for our citizens to get training in cosmetology to improve their career options and economic status.

Veto 52   Part 1B, Section 8.16, Department of Health and Human Services, page 333; DHHS: Chiropractic Services.

Veto 53   Part 1B, Section 8.26, Department of Health and Human Services, page 334; DHHS: Prescription Reimbursement Payment Methodology.

I am vetoing this section because it reduces the administrative flexibility of the Department of Health and Human Services. The State Health Plan and other commercial plans in South Carolina pay a considerably more economical reimbursement and the State Medicaid Director should be free to explore options to save money for the taxpayers.

Veto 54   Part 1B, Section 8.32, Department of Health and Human Services, page 335; DHHS: Medicaid Quarterly Fiscal Impact Statements.

I am vetoing this section because it imposes an undue labor-intensive administrative burden on DHHS. The department already provides Medicaid bulletins that announce benefit or rate changes to the House of Representatives and the Senate. In addition, Executive Order 2002-23 requires that DHHS prepare an annual report with the same information as required in this section. As of this date, the Director of DHHS has submitted three quarterly fiscal impact statements without response. If these statements are not being reviewed, I would respectfully question whether the numerous man-hours DHHS spends preparing them could be better spent elsewhere.

Veto 55   Part 1B, Section 8.41, Department of Health and Human Services, page 336; DHHS: Commission on Healthcare Access Recommendations.

I am vetoing this section because the condition that each DHHS grant must be approved by the Budget and Control Board is a gross encroachment on the powers of the executive branch and an unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of two legislators.

Excess funds from capital projects such as this should not be retained by the agency; rather these funds should return to the general fund to be re-appropriated based on the most current priorities of the State as determined by the General Assembly. As a result, I am vetoing this section.

Veto 57   Part 1B, Section 13.20, Department of Social Services, page 351; DSS: C.R. Neal Learning Center.

I am vetoing this section because it directs the Department of Social Services to provide funding to C.R. Neal Learning Center, a school district adult learning program which no longer exists. Even though this program has been discontinued, this proviso continues to require DSS to provide up to $100,000 in TANF funding to the center. The proviso is effectively moot and unenforceable since the program specified in this proviso no longer exists.

Veto 58   Part 1B, Section 24.1, Department of Natural Resources, page 357; DNR: County Funds.

Veto 59   Part 1B, Section 24.2, Department of Natural Resources, page 358; DNR: County Game Funds/Equipment Purchase.

I am vetoing the above two provisos because in my view they violate the separation of powers doctrine, and at the very least, hamstring the Department of Natural Resource's ability to manage its own affairs in the best interest of the taxpayer. The responsibility to enact laws and appropriate funds rightfully rests with the legislative branch while the management and execution of laws rests with the executive branch. However, these sections strip the executive entity, the Department of Natural Resources, of the power to manage its own affairs and in pre-home rule fashion gives the local delegation the ability to both enact and execute law by requiring the delegation approval for the operation of county funds. In Knotts v. SCDNR, the Supreme Court found legislative execution of a nearly identical fund to be unconstitutional - citing that the Legislature "may not undertake both to pass laws and to execute them by bestowing upon its own members functions belonging to other branches of government."

In the interest of performing more like a business, the Department of Natural Resources has done an exceptional job of restructuring offices and prioritizing locations. As an executive agency, DNR has been able to manage these changes very effectively; however, forcing DNR's hand in matters such as this threatens to unravel that progress. By introducing legislative management of an executive function, this type of interference effectively prohibits DNR from streamlining operations and efficiently dedicating resources toward core agency missions. As such, I am vetoing this section to protect the integrity of the department's management tools.

Veto 61   Part 1B, Section 26.1, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 361; PRT: Canadian Day.

Because I am vetoing the line-item funding for Canadian Promotions, this section is unnecessary. Again, marketing promotion such as Canadian Day should be awarded competitive grant dollars based solely on their merit.

Veto 62   Part IB, Section 26.7, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 361; PRT: Litter Control.

PalmettoPride evolved from the Governor's Task Force on Litter which was established by Executive Order 1999-20. It operated within the Governor's Office of Executive Policy and Programs until the General Assembly transferred the program to another agency, wrote a charter, and established criteria for a board of directors in part IB of the FY 2004-05 budget. I take issue with these actions on two grounds. First, I believe this is a clear encroachment by the General Assembly into an executive branch program. PalmettoPride was established by executive order and prior to the transfer, existed in the Governor's Office for five years.

Second, this section perpetuates a nonprofit agency, dictates the composition of a board of directors, and sets multi-year terms. This would not appear to be a one-year, temporary proviso as Part IB items are intended to be. The General Assembly has taken admirable steps over the past several years to curb the use of budget provisos to enact

Veto 63   Part 1B, Section 9.55, Department of Health and Environmental Control, page 344; DHEC: Competitive Grants.

Veto 64   Part 1B, Section 26.8, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 362; PRT: Competitive Grants.

Veto 65   Part 1B, Section 27.26, Department of Commerce, page 365; CMRC: Competitive Grants.

Veto 66   Part 1B, Section 63.42, Budget and Control Board; page 416; BCB: Competitive Grants.

Veto 67   Part 1B, Section 63.49, Budget and Control Board; page 417; BCB: Grants Review Committee.

I am vetoing the above sections because I believe they further "destructure" state government by requiring a legislatively-controlled Grants Review Committee to perform executive functions which is inconsistent with the principles of separation of powers and is constitutionally suspect. In our Executive Budget, we proposed creating a structured and merit-based grants review process to be administered by executive agencies rather than award special projects through special line items or pass-through funding in the Appropriations Act without consideration of their merits to the State as a whole. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism currently uses this type of competitive process. However, while the General Assembly chose to adopt our proposal to create a one-stop shop and appropriate over $3 million in competitive grants, they also chose to execute these laws by creating a legislatively-controlled committee to award the grants.

I certainly agree that the General Assembly can appropriate funds and establish criteria for awarding competitive grants; however, in these provisos, the General Assembly is usurping powers belonging to the executive branch and creating a process that will still be influenced by special legislative interests and ultimately be less competitive.

Because I am vetoing the line-item funding for Wildlife Exposition, this section is unnecessary. In FY 2004-05, the Southeastern Wildlife Exposition applied for a competitive grant from PRT and was successful in receiving TMPP grant funding. Competitive grants allow funding based on merit as determined through a competitive grants process as opposed to political earmarks.

Veto 69   Part 1B, Section 26.10, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 362; PRT: State Park Privatization Approval.

This section unnecessarily limits the administrative flexibility of a cabinet agency. Administration of park operations is clearly an executive function, and executive decisions on possible outsourcing of activities should be made on the basis of competitive proposals, not preemptive legislation. This proviso was introduced in reaction to PRT's recent request for proposal to explore the feasibility of private operation of the golf course at Cheraw State Park to save money. In reaction to that one proposal, this proviso would tie the hands of the agency from pursuing any kind of competitive sourcing arrangement for any activity, no matter how minor, at any of its parks. PRT recently outsourced the Cheraw State Park golf course reservation system to a private contractor who provides that service for many other park systems around the country. The reaction from most of the park's customers has been positive as the change to a private contractor has led to vastly improved services, lower costs, and higher revenue. I strongly believe that officials at PRT should be free to pursue other similar arrangements to provide better services at lower costs. For these reasons, I am vetoing this section.

Veto 70   Part 1B, Section 27.18, Department of Commerce, page 364; CMRC: SC World Trade Center.

This section directs the Department of Commerce to pass-through $100,000 to the World Trade Center out of its operating budget. Although this project may be worthy of state funds, I believe the WTC should participate in the competitive grants program to receive those funds, and therefore I am vetoing this item.

Veto 71   Part 1B, Section 27.30, Department of Commerce, page 365; CMRC: Business Development Marketing.

Marketing funds should remain with the Department of Commerce and spent on statewide efforts. This section directs the agency to transfer funding to specific regional marketing alliances rather than rely on commerce to direct use of marketing funds. For this reason, I am vetoing this section.

Veto 72   Part 1B, Section 27.31, Department of Commerce, page 365; CMRC: World Trade Center.

Because I am vetoing the line-item funding for the World Trade Center, this section is unnecessary. Again, I believe a competitive grants program offers a more open and merit based process than political earmarks.

Veto 73   Part 1B, Section 63.4, Budget and Control Board, page 409; BCB: Southern Maritime Collection.

Because I am vetoing the line-item funding for the Southern Maritime Collection, this section is unnecessary.

Veto 74   Part 1B, Section 63.40, Budget and Control Board; page 416; BCB: Sale of Surplus Property.

I am vetoing this section because I believe that any state-owned real estate is owned by the taxpayers as a whole rather than by any individual agency. Allowing an agency to keep half of the proceeds from the sale of surplus real estate would perpetuate a system that allows some agencies to hoard our State's finite resources when others may have greater unaddressed needs. I believe that the proceeds from any real estate sale should accrue to the general fund so that the Legislature has full access to the state's resources when allocating them through the annual budget process.

Veto 76   Part 1B, Section 72.103, Budget and Control Board; page 447; GP: SCEIS.

In the Executive Budget, we clearly indicated our concerns that the South Carolina Enterprise Information System (SCEIS) was too difficult and risky a project to undertake without a reformed structure for the State Chief Information Office. It appears the General Assembly will not restructure the CIO Office in a meaningful way in this session. In addition, the Comptroller General's office has learned that BearingPoint, the primary contractor for the SCEIS project, has filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission explaining that they are in serious financial difficulties because of problems implementing their own company's enterprise information system. While this project offers significant potential savings if properly implemented, it also brings the potential for uncontrollable expansion, cost overruns, and failure if it is not managed properly. Given the risk inherent in this project, the lack of meaningful restructuring in the CIO Office, and the financial problems at BearingPoint, we feel it would be imprudent to pursue this project in the coming year.

Veto 77   Part 1B, Section 72.107, Budget and Control Board; page 447; GP: S.C. Research Center Innovation Centers.

This section requires the South Carolina Research Authority to transfer $3,000,000 immediately and $12,000,000 over four years to create and operate at least three "innovation centers". If the innovation centers are ever created, they will become multimillion dollar unfunded annualizations in future budgets. This section and the pending enabling legislation, as drafted currently, fail to coordinate the use of the money to meet our State's economic development strategy, and I am therefore vetoing this section.

III.   Vetoes of Part 1B - Increased Enforcement Collections Section 73.17

In the section that follows, while the vetoes listed below obviously impact specific projects, they are ultimately not about the merits of

Families make these sorts of decisions every day in South Carolina. They might like to buy everything in Wal-Mart, Home Depot or Sears, but they don't because they don't have the money. Not purchasing a good or service doesn't mean the shopper views the item as bad. They just view it as something they can't purchase at the moment. We believe these vetoes represent spending that can come at a later date - after we have paid back money borrowed during tough times. We also think prudent families don't grow their expenditures at nine percent when their income is growing at less than 1/2 that amount.

Veto 78   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, J02 Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Information and Referral Network, $104,142.

Veto 79   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, H15 University of Charleston, School of Business: Office of Tourism Analysis, $129,000.

Veto 80   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, H15 University of Charleston, Avery Research Center, $100,000.

Veto 81   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, H18 Francis Marion University, Omega Project, $18,853.

Veto 82   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, H18 Francis Marion University, Francis Marion Trail, $110,000.

Veto 83   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, H27 University of South Carolina - Columbia, Poison Control Center, $200,000.

Veto 84   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, H27 University of South

Veto 85   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, H12 Clemson University, Call Me Mister, $1,300,000.

Veto 86   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, H47 Winthrop University, Thurmond College of Business Administration, $1,000,000.

Veto 87   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, E24 Adjutant General's Office, Air Guard, $100,000.

Veto 88   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, U12 Department of Transportation, Mass Transit, $1,300,000.

Veto 89   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, F03 Budget and Control Board, Geodetic Mapping, $250,000.

Veto 90   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, F03 Budget and Control Board, Maritime Collection Maintenance and Security, $100,000.

Veto 91   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, P28 Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Competitive Grants Program, $56,727.

Veto 92   Part 1B, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 453, SR: Increased Enforcement Collections, P28 Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, European Advertising, $1,000,000.

IV.   Vetoes of Part IB-Supplemental Section 73.18
In the section that follows, while the vetoes listed below obviously impact specific projects, they are ultimately not about the merits of those projects. They are about getting to a sum that enables us to repay half of the outstanding balance on trust and reserve funds.

Veto 93   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 455; Line 6; H03; Commission Higher Education; Greenville University Center; $800,000.

Veto 94   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 455; Line 8; J04; Department of Health and Environmental Control; Beach Renourishment Trust Fund; $5,000,000.

Veto 95   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 455; Line 9; H51; Medical University of South Carolina; Nursing Clinical Teaching Lab; $1,500,000.

Veto 96   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 455; Line 11; H63; Department of Education; SC Alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs, Inc.; $1,000,000.

Veto 97   Part 1B, Section 73; Section 73.18; page 455; Line 12; J04; Department of Health and Environmental Control; Competitive Grants; 2,800,000.

Veto 98   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 455; Line 13; P28; Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism; Competitive Grants; $3,000,000.

Veto 99   Part 1B, Section 73, Section 73.18, page 455; Line 14; Department of Commerce; a) Competitive Grants; $500,000.

Veto 100   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 455; Line 16; F03; Budget and Control Board; a) Competitive Grants; $3,000,000.

Veto 102   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 455; Line 16; F03; Budget and Control Board; d) Expansion of Heritage Corridor; $500,000.

Veto 103   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 455; Line 18; L04; Department of Social Services; b) The Lacy House, $200,000.

Veto 104   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 455; Line 18; L04; Department of Social Services; a) Children in Crisis; $500,000.

Veto 105   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 455; Line 19; Budget and Control Board; City of Florence Downtown Redevelopment; $1,000,000.

Veto 106   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 21; J02; Department of Health and Human Services; Health Care Information & Referral Network; $111,858.

Veto 107   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 22; H18; Francis Marion University; Center for the Child, Construction; $2,000,000.

Veto 108   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 23; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Spartanburg Technical College - Cherokee Expansion; $2,000,000.

Veto 109   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 24; E24; Adjutant General; State Guard Other Operating Expenses; $200,000.

Veto 110   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 26; F03; Budget and Control Board; Maritime Collection Maintenance & Security; $75,000.

Veto 111   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 30; J02; Department of Health & Human Services; Rural Hospital Grants; $3,000,000.

Veto 113   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 32; P28; Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism; Heritage Corridor/Willington on the Way; $350,000.

Veto 114   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 35; P32; Department of Commerce; I-26/I-95 Corridor Project; $950,000.

Veto 115   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 36; R36; Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation; Fire Academy - Local Needs Equipment; $50,000.

Veto 116   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 37; H87; State Library; Williamsburg County Children's Library; $450,000.

Veto 117   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 39; H36; University of South Carolina - Beaufort; Penn Center; $500,000.

Veto 118   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 40; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Florence-Darlington Technical College - Mullins Satellite Campus; $350,000.

Veto 119   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 41; P28; Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism; Repair and Maintenance to the Francis Marion Tomb; $50,000.

Veto 120   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 42; D10; Governor's Office-State Law Enforcement Division; Marlboro County Sheriff's Department Building; $250,000.

Veto 121   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 456; Line 53; H37; University of South Carolina - Lancaster; Deferred Maintenance; $100,000.

Veto 123   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 44; P28; Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism; Battle of Camden Land Acquisition; $200,000.

Veto 124   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 45; H24; South Carolina State University; Program Enhancement and Deferred Maintenance; $1,500,000.

Veto 125   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 46; H09; The Citadel; Deferred Maintenance; $500,000.

Veto 126   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 47; H12; Clemson University; Engineering Research Centers; $408,728.

Veto 127   Part I B; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 48; H12; Clemson University; Deferred Maintenance; $400,000.

Veto 128   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 49; H17; Coastal Carolina University; Science Building Support; $500,000.

Veto 129   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 50; H21; Lander University; Deferred Maintenance; $1,000,000.

Veto 130   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 51; H27; University of South Carolina; Deferred Maintenance; $475,000.

Veto 131   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 52; H29; University of South Carolina - Aiken; Deferred Maintenance; $250,000.

Veto 132   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 54; H38; University of South Carolina - Salkehatchie; Deferred Maintenance; $100,000.

Veto 134   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 56; H40; University of South Carolina- Union; Deferred Maintenance; $100,000.

Veto 135   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance a) Aiken Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 136   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance b) Central Carolina Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 137   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance c) Denmark Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 138   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance d) Florence-Darlington Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 139   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance e) Greenville Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 140   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance f) Horry-Georgetown Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 141   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance g) Midlands Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 143   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance i) Piedmont Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 144   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance j) Technical College of the Lowcountry; $100,000.

Veto 145   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance k) Tri-County Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 146   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance l) Trident Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 147   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance m) Williamsburg Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 148   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 57; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Deferred Maintenance n) York Technical College; $100,000.

Veto 149   Part IB; Section 73; Section 73.18; page 457; Line 58; H59; State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; Special Schools; $3,000,000.

V.   Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, and pursuant to the authority granted to the Governor by Article IV, Section 21 of the South Carolina Constitution, I am vetoing the specific sections and items of H. 3716, R. 73, the fiscal year 2005-2006 General Appropriations Act, as indicated. I look forward to working together in a spirit of cooperation

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following veto printed in the Journal:

May 17, 2005
The Honorable David H. Wilkins, Speaker
South Carolina House of Representatives
508 Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am returning H. 3717 (Word version), R.74, the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Capital Reserve Fund Appropriations Act, with the line-item vetoes detailed below. Of the $99,356,026 devoted to capital reserve fund spending, I believe that there are a significant number of items of lower priority than replenishing trust and reserve funds. In my view, the trust fund balance represents a considerable budgetary shortfall of over $400 million that must be repaid. This outstanding balance is a visible reminder of prior year spending that exceeded corresponding revenue. Basically, our government spent more than it took in, and we have an obligation to the taxpayers to repay what was borrowed.

Trust and reserve funds are collected and used by the State for carrying out specific purposes and programs in accordance with the terms and conditions of a trust agreement or statute. As a state, we chose to borrow from these restricted accounts to maintain program funding during the most recent economic downturn. I believe, now that economic conditions have improved, we are compelled to replenish the amounts borrowed in tough times. As an extension of that belief, we proposed in our Executive Budget that the Fiscal Discipline Act of 2004 be amended to limit the increase in recurring expenditures to 3 percent until all trust and reserve funds are repaid.

In the spirit of the Fiscal Discipline Act, I have set forth below the specific vetoes that, in the aggregate, eliminate spending of $25,608,000 in capital reserve funds.

Veto 1     Section 1; page 1; Item 4(B); State Department of Education; Governor's School       for the Arts; Deferred Maintenance; $775,000.

Veto 2     Section 1; page 1; Item 4(C); State Department of Education; Governor's School       - Math and Science; Deferred Maintenance; $775,000.

Veto 3     Section 1; page 2; Item 9; Board of Technical and Comprehensive   Education;       Orangeburg Technical College; $2,000,000.

Veto 4     Section 1; page 2; Item 13; State Museum; Imagine Nation: Children's Museum       of the Upstate; $1,200,000.

Veto 5     Section 1; page 2; Item 14(A); Department of Parks, Recreation &   Tourism;       Charlestown Landing;   $7,000,000.

Veto 6     Section 1; page 2; Item 14(B); Department of Parks, Recreation &   Tourism;       Reedy River-Bike and Walking Trail; $500,000.

Veto 7     Section 1; page 2; Item 15; Department of Archives & History; Old Exchange       Building; $850,000

Veto 9     Section 1; page 3; Item 29(A); University of South Carolina-Columbia; Gambrell Hall Repairs; $500,000.

Veto 10   Section 1; page 3; Item 29(B); University of South Carolina-Columbia; West-Campus Safety Improvements; $400,000.

Veto 11   Section 1; page 3; Item 29(C); University of South Carolina-Columbia; Steamline Replacement-Repair; $500,000.

Veto 12   Section 1; page 3; Item 30, State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education; York-Technical College - Infrastructure Project; $522,000.

Although the items listed above may be worthy projects, I am vetoing them because of my strong belief that outstanding debts to trust and reserve funds must be satisfied before funding these new projects. To be clear, while these items refer to specific projects, the vetoes are ultimately not about the merits of the individual projects. Each veto is a means to an end - repaying half of the outstanding balance on trust funds.

Veto 13   Section 1; page 3; Item 28(A); Budget & Control Board; SCEIS; $5,500,000.

In our Executive Budget, we clearly indicated our concerns that the South Carolina Enterprise Information System (SCEIS) was too difficult and risky a project to undertake without a reformed structure for the CIO office. It appears the General Assembly will not restructure the CIO office in a meaningful way in this session. In addition, the Comptroller General's office has learned that BearingPoint, the primary contractor for the SCEIS project, has filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission explaining that they are in serious financial difficulties because of problems implementing their own company's enterprise information system. While this project offers a potential of up to $120 million dollars in annual work process savings after five years of implementation, it also brings the potential for uncontrolled expansion, cost over-runs, and failure if it is not managed properly. Given the risk inherent in this

Veto 14   Section 1; page 2; Item 5(B); Department of Social Services; Greenville Urban League; $86,000.

I am vetoing this section because it is a special pass through item for the Greenville Urban League which has been appropriated a total of $104,389 in both H. 3717 (capital reserve fund appropriates $86,000) and H. 3716 (appropriates $18,389). We do not believe we should single out one Urban League when numerous other non-profit organizations which support minority and disadvantaged communities do not receive any state funds.

For the reasons stated above, and pursuant to the authority granted to the Governor by Article IV, Section 21 of the South Carolina Constitution, I am vetoing the specific sections and items of H. 3717, R. 74, the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Capital Reserve Fund Appropriations Act, as indicated. I look forward to working together in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect toward the goal of disciplined budgetary practices and cooperative service to the citizens of South Carolina.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

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

H. 3554 (Word version) -- Rep. Huggins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-9-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO QUALIFYING AS A SELF-INSURER FOR MOTOR VEHICLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT ISSUED BY A BANK CHARTERED IN THIS STATE OR A MEMBER BANK OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN LIEU OF THE CASH

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

S. 67 (Word version) -- Senators Short, Elliott and Ford: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-11-1460 SO AS TO ENACT THE "VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER JOB PROTECTION ACT", PROHIBITING AN EMPLOYER FROM FIRING A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER WHO MISSES TIME AT WORK AS A RESULT OF RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING HIS DUTIES AS A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER, ALLOWING THE EMPLOYER TO REQUIRE A WRITTEN STATEMENT AND REASONABLE NOTICE AND TO DEDUCT TIME LOST FROM THE EMPLOYEE'S REGULAR PAY, TO CREATE A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THIS ACT AND PROVIDE REMEDIES, AND TO MAKE THIS ACT APPLICABLE

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

S. 365 (Word version) -- Senators Leatherman and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 11-35-3030, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BOND AND SECURITY FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT PURSUANT TO THE STATE CONSOLIDATED PROCUREMENT CODE, SO AS TO REDUCE THE MAXIMUM RETENTION AMOUNT FOR EACH INSTALLMENT PENDING COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT FROM FIVE PERCENT TO THREE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

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

S. 557 (Word version) -- Senator Richardson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-1-500, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS OF PRISONERS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY PENAL SYSTEM, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A MUNICIPALITY TO COVER PRISONERS WORKING FOR THE MUNICIPALITY.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

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

S. 135 (Word version) -- Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-7-65, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF WAGES FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE ENTITY USING A VOLUNTARY STATE CONSTABLE'S SERVICES MUST APPROVE AND FUND THE PREMIUMS FOR HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION

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

S. 75 (Word version) -- Senators Knotts, Hutto, O'Dell, Alexander, Cromer and Ford: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-11-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES, AND THE PRESUMPTION THAT HEART OR RESPIRATORY DISEASES OCCURRING IN FIREFIGHTERS AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CARDIAC-RELATED INCIDENT RESULTING IN IMPAIRMENT OR INJURY TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RESULTING IN TOTAL OR PARTIAL DISABILITY, OR DEATH, IS PRESUMED TO HAVE ARISEN OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

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

S. 607 (Word version) -- Senators Lourie, J. V. Smith, Anderson, Hayes, Land, Malloy, Ford, Elliott, Richardson, Matthews, Patterson, Grooms, McConnell, Short, Williams, Cleary, Leventis, Martin, Hutto, Scott, Thomas and Jackson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 7 TO TITLE 37 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF CONSUMER CREDIT COUNSELING IN THIS STATE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, A WRITTEN CONTRACT, A THOROUGH BUDGET ANALYSIS, A TRUST ACCOUNT WITH AT LEAST QUARTERLY ACCOUNTINGS TO THE CONSUMER, A SURETY BOND, A LIMITATION ON FEES, REPORTS TO THE DEPARTMENT, A

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

S. 637 (Word version) -- Senators Jackson, Malloy, J. V. Smith, Matthews, Reese, Short, McGill, Leventis, Williams, Patterson and Pinckney: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 68, TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF STAFF LEASING SERVICES, SO AS TO CHANGE THE TERM "STAFF LEASING SERVICES" TO "PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER ORGANIZATIONS" AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE EMPLOYEES TO BUSINESSES GENERALLY ON A LONG TERM BASIS; AND AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO REQUIRE TWO YEARS OF INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE TO BE LICENSED AND TO PROVIDE A GRANDFATHER PROVISION FOR EXISTING LICENSEES PROVIDING THESE SERVICES; TO ESTABLISH CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS; TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS TO USE AN ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION TO CERTIFY THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER ORGANIZATION FOR LICENSURE; TO SPECIFY INSURANCE INFORMATION THAT AN ORGANIZATION MUST PROVIDE TO EMPLOYEES AND THE DEPARTMENT; AND TO FURTHER SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS WHEN PROVIDING EMPLOYEE INSURANCE.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

On motion of Rep. OTT, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4116 (Word version) -- Rep. Ott: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS STUDENT ASSOCIATION TO USE THE HOUSE CHAMBER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2005, FOR A MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION.

That the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives authorize the South Carolina Independent Schools Student Association to use the House Chamber on Tuesday, September 20, 2005, for a meeting of the association. If the House of Representatives is in statewide session or if the House Chamber is otherwise unavailable, the House Chamber may not be used on those dates.

Be it further resolved that the use of the Chamber by the South Carolina Independent Schools Student Association must be in strict accordance with the policies and rules of the House.

Be it further resolved that the Office of the Sergeant at Arms of the House shall provide assistance and access as necessary for this meeting in accordance with applicable procedures of the rules of the House of Representatives.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to David Lake, President of the South Carolina Independent Schools Student Association and the Honorable Mitchell G. Dorman, Sergeant at Arms of the House.

The Resolution was adopted.

On motion of Rep. WALKER, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4117 (Word version) -- Rep. Walker: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR TO THE LANDRUM HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY BASEBALL TEAM, ITS COACHES, AND SCHOOL OFFICIALS OF LANDRUM IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPEAKER, TO CONGRATULATE THEM ON THE 2005 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE AND TO HONOR THE TEAM AND ITS COACH, TRAVIS HENSON, ON A TRULY EXCEPTIONAL SEASON.

That the members of the House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, extend the privilege of the floor to the Landrum High School Varsity Baseball Team, its coaches, and school officials of Landrum in Spartanburg County at a date and time to be determined by the Speaker, to congratulate them on the 2005 State Championship title and to honor the team and its coach, Travis Henson, on a truly exceptional season.

The Resolution was adopted.

On motion of Rep. WALKER, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4118 (Word version) -- Rep. Walker: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE CHAPMAN HIGH SCHOOL LADY PANTHERS SOFTBALL TEAM, COACHES, STAFF, AND OTHER SCHOOL OFFICIALS AT A TIME AND DATE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPEAKER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONGRATULATING AND HONORING THE TEAM ON WINNING THE 2005 STATE CLASS AA CHAMPIONSHIP.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the privilege of the floor of the South Carolina House of Representatives be extended to the Chapman High School Lady Panthers Softball Team, coaches, staff, and other school officials at a time and date to be determined by the Speaker, for the purpose of congratulating and honoring the team on winning the 2005 State Class AA Championship.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 4119 (Word version) -- Rep. Walker: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE LANDRUM HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY

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

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 852 (Word version) -- Senator Anderson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND RECOGNIZE PASTOR GLENN R. PLUMMER FOR HIS UNDYING COMMITMENT TO CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING AND FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY EXAMPLE HE SETS AS A LEADER IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY.

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

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 856 (Word version) -- Senator Elliott: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE WACCAMAW INDIAN PEOPLE FROM HORRY COUNTY, THE PEE DEE INDIAN NATION OF UPPER SOUTH CAROLINA FROM DILLON COUNTY, THE WASSAMASAW TRIBE OF VARNERTOWN INDIANS FROM BERKELEY COUNTY, AND THE EASTERN CHEROKEE, SOUTHERN IROQUOIS, AND UNITED TRIBES OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM RICHLAND COUNTY ON BEING GRANTED STATE RECOGNITION BY THE BOARD OF THE STATE COMMISSION FOR MINORITY AFFAIRS.

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

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 857 (Word version) -- Senator Lourie: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION JOINING THE CAPITAL SENIOR CENTER OF COLUMBIA IN CELEBRATION OF ITS TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF OFFERING THE SENIOR POPULATION OF RICHLAND AND LEXINGTON COUNTIES A RESOURCE FOR PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL FITNESS.

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

The following Bill was introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committee:

H. 4120 (Word version) -- Rep. J. E. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-5-310, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ANY PERSON PRACTICING OR SOLICITING THE CAUSE OF ANOTHER PERSON IN A COURT OF THIS STATE UNLESS HE HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND SWORN AS AN ATTORNEY, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH AND PERSONS AND CAUSES TO WHICH IT APPLIES, AND TO MAKE A VIOLATION AN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE UNDER SECTION 39-5-20.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

The following was introduced:

H. 4121 (Word version) -- Rep. Townsend: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO HONOR AND RECOGNIZE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF DOCTOR RON WALFIELD UPON HIS RETIREMENT AS PRINCIPAL OF MARSHALL PRIMARY SCHOOL IN BELTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO HIM IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Resolution was adopted.

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

Agnew                  Allen                  Altman
Anderson               Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Ballentine             Barfield
Battle                 Bingham                Bowers
Brady                  Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chalk
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Coates                 Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Frye
Funderburk             Govan                  Hagood
Haley                  Hamilton               Hardwick
Harrell                Harrison               Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hiott
Hosey                  Howard                 Jefferson
Jennings               Kennedy                Kirsh
Leach                  Littlejohn             Loftis
Lucas                  Mahaffey               McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 J. M. Neal             Norman
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Rhoad
Rice                   Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Umphlett               Vaughn
Vick                   Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Wednesday, May 18.

William R. "Bill" Whitmire        James E. Stewart
Chip Huggins                      Denny Neilson
Daniel Tripp                      G. Murrell Smith
Todd Rutherford                   Joseph Neal
David Mack                        H. B. "Chip" Limehouse
Bessie Moody-Lawrence             Brenda Lee
Thad Viers                        Bill Cotty

On May 17, 2005, I had a hearing in York County in front of Judge Lee Alford that prohibited me from being present during the day's Legislative Session.

Rep. Creighton B. Coleman

Rep. PHILLIPS signed a statement with the Clerk that he came in after the roll call of the House and was present for the Session on Thursday, May 5.

Rep. WILKINS presented to the House the Christ Church Episcopal School "Cavaliers" Boys Tennis Team, the 2005 Class AA/A Champions, their coach and other school officials.

Rep. LITTLEJOHN presented to the House the Broome High School Track and Field Team, the AA Champions, their coach and other school officials.

In accordance with House Rule 5.2 below:
"5.2   Every bill before presentation shall have its title endorsed; every report, its title at length; every petition, memorial, or other paper, its prayer or substance; and, in every instance, the name of the member presenting any paper shall be endorsed and the papers shall be presented by the member to the Speaker at the desk. After a bill or resolution has been presented and given first reading, no further names of co-sponsors may be added. A member may add his name to a bill or resolution or a co-sponsor of a bill or resolution may remove his name at any time prior to the bill or resolution receiving passage on second reading. The member or co-sponsor shall notify the Clerk of the House in writing of his desire to have his name added or removed from the bill or resolution. The Clerk of the House shall print the member's or co-sponsor's written notification in the House Journal. The removal or addition of a name does not apply to a bill or resolution sponsored by a committee."

Bill Number:   H. 4047 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
05/18/05   BRADY

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

H. 4086 (Word version) -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO ENACT THE DILLON COUNTY SCHOOL FACILITIES FINANCING ACT SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE IMPLEMENTATION FOLLOWING REFERENDUM APPROVAL OF A SALES AND USE TAX IN DILLON COUNTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO PERCENT TO OFFSET PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS ISSUED TO FINANCE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION, ACQUISITION, AND RENOVATION OR FOR DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION, ACQUISITION, AND RENOVATION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO IMPLEMENTING THIS ACT.

H. 3841 (Word version) -- Reps. Talley, Bowers, Cotty, Clark, Chellis, Martin, Skelton, Davenport, McGee, Altman, Bailey, Brady, Harrison,

H. 3221 (Word version) -- Reps. Clemmons, Rice, Simrill, Mahaffey, Wilkins, Harrell, Harrison, Cato, J. Brown, Townsend, Edge, Merrill, Chellis, Ott, R. Brown, Mack, Barfield, Witherspoon, Duncan, M. A. Pitts, Owens, Chalk, Bailey, Ceips, Haley, Viers, Hardwick and Toole: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, CHAPTER 6, TITLE 44 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREES AND INDIVIDUALS POOLING TOGETHER FOR SAVINGS ACT (SCRIPTS), SO AS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THIS ACT TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREES AND INDIVIDUALS POOLING TOGETHER FOR SAVINGS-SILVERXCARD ACT AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCRIPTS-SILVERXCARD PROGRAM MUST COORDINATE WITH MEDICARE PART D TO PROVIDE TO LOW INCOME SENIOR RESIDENTS ASSISTANCE WITH THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, TO REQUIRE THAT A PARTICIPANT BE ENROLLED IN A MEDICARE PART D DRUG PLAN, TO CLARIFY OTHER ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, TO SPECIFY THAT AN ENROLLEE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS WHEN THE ENROLLEE'S ANNUAL OUT-OF-POCKET DRUG EXPENSES REACH THE POINT THAT STANDARD MEDICARE PART D BENEFITS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE AND THAT BENEFITS TERMINATE WHEN THE PARTICIPANT'S ANNUAL OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES REACH THE POINT THAT CATASTROPHIC MEDICARE PART D BENEFITS ARE AVAILABLE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT IF REVENUE IS GENERATED FOR THE PROGRAM FROM OTHER SOURCES, THIS ADDITIONAL REVENUE MUST BE USED TO FUND PROGRAM BENEFITS AND MAKE PAYMENTS, AS MAY BE REQUIRED, UNDER THE FEDERAL MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG, IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003;

The following Bills and Joint Resolution were read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title of each be changed to that of an Act, and that they be enrolled for ratification:

S. 535 (Word version) -- Senators Hutto, Moore, Ryberg, Richardson and Pinckney: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-237, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE HARVEST OF STRIPED BASS AND STRIPED BASS HYBRIDS IN PORTIONS OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER, SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS MORE THAN TWO STRIPED BASS, STRIPED BASS HYBRIDS, WHITE BASS, OR ANY COMBINATION OF THESE SPECIES IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER AND TO PROVIDE THAT ANY LAWFUL POSSESSED FISH OF EACH OF THESE SPECIES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF TWENTY-SEVEN INCHES IN TOTAL LENGTH; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 50-13-120 RELATING TO NO SIZE LIMITS ON CERTAIN FRESH WATER FISH.

S. 291 (Word version) -- Senators Gregory and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-9-510, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LICENSES AUTHORIZED FOR SALE BY THE DEPARTMENT, SO AS TO REVISE THE AGE AND FEE REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATEWIDE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE.

S. 289 (Word version) -- Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2420, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COMMERCIAL FUR LICENSES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE LICENSE FEES; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2460, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE TRAPPING OF FURBEARERS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TYPES OF TRAPS WHICH MAY BE USED; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2475, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A FUR PROCESSOR'S LICENSE, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A LICENSE AND FOR

S. 738 (Word version) -- Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, STATE CROP PEST COMMISSION, RELATING TO DESIGNATION OF PLANT PEST, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 2939, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

The following Joint Resolution was taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments:

S. 184 (Word version) -- Senators Leatherman, Grooms, Mescher, Williams and McGill: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO CREATE THE FRANCIS MARION TRAIL COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH A HERITAGE AND TOURISM TRAIL HONORING FRANCIS MARION'S REVOLUTIONARY CAMPAIGNS AND TO ESTABLISH THE COMMISSION'S MEMBERSHIP, DUTIES, AND RELATED MATTERS.

The following Bill was taken up:

S. 204 (Word version) -- Senator J. V. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-150-375 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN VISUAL OR HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS MAY RECEIVE STATE SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS TO ATTEND CERTAIN OUT-OF-STATE INSTITUTIONS.

Rep. DAVENPORT proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\GGS\22203HTC05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 59-150-375, as contained in Section 1, page 1, and inserting:
/   Section 59-150-375.   A visual or hearing impaired or multi-handicapped student who qualifies for state scholarship funds pursuant to Chapter 149 of Title 59, Section 59-104-20, Section 59-150-360, or Section 59-150-370 may receive state scholarship funds to attend an out-of-state institution that specializes in educating visual or hearing impaired or multi-handicapped students if the Commission on Higher Education certifies the student's impairment or multi-handicap and that no in-state institution exists to specifically meet the student's need.   /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. DAVENPORT explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. J. R. SMITH moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 19, which was adopted:

S. 589 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Drummond, Rankin, Land, McGill, Thomas, Moore, Fair, Ryberg, Setzler, Peeler, Reese and Verdin: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 43, TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COUNTY EQUALIZATION AND REASSESSMENT, BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-365, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE VALUE OF TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AND ANY INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF GOLF COURSE REAL PROPERTY FOR AD VALOREM TAX PURPOSES.

Rep. VAUGHN moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 19, which was adopted:

H. 3703 (Word version) -- Reps. Vaughn, Loftis, Haskins, Davenport, Altman, Bailey, Bales, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Cooper, Herbkersman, Littlejohn, Rhoad, Rice, Walker and Leach: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-275, SO AS TO REPLACE CALCULATION AND IMPOSITION OF A ROLLBACK PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE RATE FOR REASSESSMENT YEARS WITH A REASSESSMENT YEAR MILLAGE RATE CALCULATED TO PRODUCE NO MORE THAN ONE PERCENT ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE THAN SUCH REVENUE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR; TO AMEND SECTION 6-1-320, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO MILLAGE RATE LIMITATIONS ON LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES, SO AS TO DELETE AUTHORIZATION FOR MILLAGE RATE INCREASES EQUAL TO INCREASES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX WITHOUT A POSITIVE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE GOVERNING BODY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-251, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX

The following Bill was taken up:

H. 3702 (Word version) -- Reps. J. R. Smith, Loftis, Hinson, G. R. Smith, Haskins, Barfield, Vaughn, Clark, Frye, Davenport, Viers, Haley, Altman, Bailey, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clemmons, Dantzler, Edge, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrell, Herbkersman, Huggins, Limehouse, Littlejohn, McGee, Merrill, Perry, E. H. Pitts, Rice, Sandifer, Scarborough, D. C. Smith, W. D. Smith, Talley, Tripp and Young: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-67-460, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONTRACTS FOR SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY CONTRACT WITH PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS OR CONTRACTORS FOR ITS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND TO PROVIDE THE FORMULA BY WHICH THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD SHALL CALCULATE STATE AID.

The Ways and Means Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\PT\2640SJ05):
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting all after the enacting words and inserting:
/ SECTION   1.   Section 59-67-460 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 59-67-460.   (A)   Any county board of education A school district may at any time contract for any part or all of its transportation services with private individuals or contractors for the furnishing of such these services. In any such this instance the county board of education school district shall execute the contracts. The county board shall school district must be responsible for the payment of all sums due under contracts so entered into pursuant to this section and shall receive aid from the State for pupils thus transported only on the basis of the average per pupil operating cost of State-owned equipment for the current year as determined by the State Board of Education. as calculated by the State Budget and Control Board to include that district's proportional share of the current year's state

(B)   The Board board may enter into agreements an agreement with county boards of education a school district whereby pupils living in isolated areas may be transported by special arrangements when such transportation can be provided at lower cost than by operating a regular bus route."
SECTION   2.   This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. J. R. SMITH explained the amendment.

Reps. KENNEDY, J. E. SMITH, SCOTT, J. BROWN, F. N. SMITH, ALLEN, DAVENPORT, R. BROWN, WHIPPER, HOSEY, J. R. SMITH, HINSON and COOPER requested debate on the Bill.

Rep. RICE moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 19, which was adopted:

S. 305 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler, J. V. Smith, Short, Alexander, Hayes, Moore, Lourie and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA MEDICAID MODERNIZATION ACT" INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO ADD ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 6, TITLE 44 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SHALL IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE AND

Rep. COOPER moved to adjourn debate upon the following Joint Resolution until Thursday, May 19, which was adopted:

H. 4070 (Word version) -- Ways and Means Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 16, ARTICLE X OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO BENEFITS AND FUNDING OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSION PLANS IN THIS STATE AND INVESTMENTS ALLOWED FOR FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS STATE-OPERATED RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, SO AS TO DELETE THE RESTRICTIONS LIMITING SUCH INVESTMENTS TO AMERICAN-BASED CORPORATIONS REGISTERED ON AN AMERICAN NATIONAL EXCHANGE AS PROVIDED IN THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 OR QUOTED THROUGH THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS AUTOMATIC QUOTATION SYSTEM.

The following Bill was taken up:

S. 138 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 10 TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES.

Reps. G. M. SMITH, WEEKS, KENNEDY, WHITE, DAVENPORT and HINSON requested debate on the Bill.

Rep. TAYLOR moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 19, which was adopted:

H. 4078 (Word version) -- Reps. Duncan, Taylor, M. A. Pitts, Cotty, Clark, Viers, Rivers, Bowers, Hosey, Anderson, G. Brown, Leach, W. D. Smith, Rhoad, Bailey, Bales, Branham, Breeland, R. Brown, Chellis, Clyburn, Jefferson, Merrill, Neilson, Simrill, Sinclair and Young: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-1-370, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CLOSING OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ON GENERAL ELECTION DAY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT UPON A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY CHOOSE TO CLOSE ON GENERAL ELECTION DAY EACH YEAR.

Rep. SCOTT moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 19, which was adopted:

H. 3346 (Word version) -- Reps. Scott, Govan, J. Brown, McLeod, Clyburn, J. Hines, Hosey, Miller, M. Hines, Haskins, Phillips, J. H. Neal, Bales, Battle, Breeland, R. Brown, Howard, Jennings, J. E. Smith, Clark and Rutherford: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 45, TITLE 44 TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA CHILDREN'S HEALTH OBESITY ACT, INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO CREATE THE CHILD HEALTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE; TO PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP, POWERS AND DUTIES, INCLUDING DEVELOPING NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN HEALTH AND NUTRITION SPECIALISTS TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CONTINGENT UPON AVAILABLE FUNDING; TO REQUIRE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO CONVENE NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES; TO REQUIRE STUDENT AND SCHOOL REPORT CARDS TO CONTAIN CERTAIN HEALTH DATA; AND TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

The following Bill was taken up:

S. 97 (Word version) -- Senators Land, Elliott and Ford: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 31-7-25 SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY AVAILABLE FOR REDEVELOPMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT FOR COUNTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-20, RELATING TO EXISTING FINDINGS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT, SO AS TO EXTEND EXISTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-30, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT, SO AS TO REVISE APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS TO EXTEND THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO MORE RURAL AREAS AND ADD ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS NECESSARY TO ASSIST SUCH RURAL AREAS; TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-80, RELATING TO THE FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ORDINANCE, SO AS TO REVISE THESE FINDINGS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-120, RELATING TO JOINTLY ADOPTED MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT PLANS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE COUNTIES JOINTLY BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A MULTI-COUNTY OR REGIONAL AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PROPERTY WHEN SUCH PROJECTS HAVE ECONOMIC IMPACT BEYOND A SINGLE COUNTY AND PROVIDE FOR ALL SUCH AUTHORITIES TO ACT BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AND ORDINANCES OF COUNTIES PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT.

Reps. FUNDERBURK and HERBKERSMAN proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\NBD\ 11810AC05):
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:

"Section 31-7-25.   The General Assembly further finds that:

Vast expanses of land located at considerable distances from municipalities and urban and suburban development in counties, while having served the people of this State and its economy when originally developed and maintained over the generations as agricultural property, contributing food, fiber, timber, and pulpwood, now, in an evolving economy and amidst a much smaller, yet vastly more efficient agricultural economy, is in need of redevelopment to provide multiple uses utilizing the redevelopment tools provided in this chapter, with suitable modifications to provide for the particular requirements to redevelop areas formerly developed only for agricultural use.

Section 31-7-130.   Nothing in this chapter relieves any government-owned telecommunications service provider from any of the provisions of Sections 58-9-2600 through 58-9-2650."
SECTION   2.   Section 31-7-20(A)(3) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 109 of 1999, is amended to read:

"(3)   There exist in many counties of this State blighted, conservation, and sprawl areas; the sprawl and conservation areas are rapidly deteriorating and declining and may soon become blighted areas if their decline is not checked; the stable economic and physical development of the blighted areas, conservation areas, and sprawl areas are endangered by the presence of blighting factors as manifested by progressive and advanced deterioration of structures, by the overuse of housing and other facilities, by a lack of physical maintenance of existing structures, by obsolete and inadequate community facilities, and a lack of sound community planning, by obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, excessive tax, and special assessment delinquencies, or by a combination of these and other factors; that as a result of the existence of blighted areas, areas requiring conservation, and sprawl areas, there is an excessive and disproportionate expenditure of public funds, inadequate public and private investment, unmarketability of property, growth in delinquencies and crime, and substandard housing conditions and zoning law violations in such areas together with an abnormal exodus of families and businesses so that the decline of these areas impairs the value of private investments and threatens the sound growth and the tax base of taxing districts in such areas, and threatens the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the public."
SECTION   3.   Section 31-7-30 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 109 of 1999, is amended to read:

"Section 31-7-30.   Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

(1)   'Blighted area' means any improved or vacant area within the boundaries of a redevelopment project area located within the territorial limits of a county where:

(a)   if improved, industrial, commercial, and residential buildings or improvements, because of a combination of five or more of the following factors: age; dilapidation; obsolescence; deterioration; illegal use of individual structures; presence of structures below minimum code standards; excessive vacancies; overcrowding of structures and community facilities; presence of or potential environmental hazard; lack of ventilation, light, storm drainage or sanitary facilities; inadequate utilities; inadequate transportation infrastructure: excessive land coverage; deleterious land use or layout; depreciation of physical maintenance; lack of community planning, are detrimental to the public safety, health, morals, or welfare; or

(2)   'Conservation area' means any vacant or improved area within the boundaries of a redevelopment project area located within the territorial limits of a county that is not yet a blighted area but, because of a combination of three or more of the following factors: dilapidation; obsolescence; deterioration; illegal use of structures; presence of structures below minimum code standards; abandonment; excessive vacancies; overcrowding of structures and community facilities; presence of or potential environmental hazard; lack of ventilation, light, storm drainage or sanitary facilities; inadequate utilities; inadequate transportation infrastructure; excessive land coverage; depreciation of physical maintenance; or lack of community planning,; agricultural foreclosures; static or declining agricultural land rental rates; depopulation; area-wide economic decline; or static per capita income, is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals, or welfare and may become a blighted area.

(3)   'Sprawl area' means a vacant or improved area within the boundaries of a redevelopment project area located within the territorial limits of the unincorporated area of a county that is not yet a blighted area nor a conservation area but, because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions, has the potential to become blighted or in need of conservation:

(a)   The sprawl area is an unincorporated urban zone, UUZ, which is an area within the unincorporated portion of the county issuing the finding and has a population density equal to or greater than the average population density of the incorporated municipalities within the territorial limits of the county issuing the finding.

(b)   The sprawl area is a linear service zone, LSZ, which is an area within the unincorporated portion of the county issuing the finding which is or is likely to become an area no more than two miles wide at its widest point and no less than three miles in length and which, due to development within the zone, represents an impediment to vehicular and pedestrian traffic so that the county finds its existence a detriment to the:

(i)     economic health and well-being of the county;

(ii)   health or safety of the persons living, working, or traveling through the zone; or

(iii)   efficient provision of governmental services both within and without the zone.

(c)   The sprawl area is a rural redevelopment zone, RRZ, which is an area within the unincorporated portion of the county issuing the finding which consists primarily of vacant land which, if provided with certain environmental, energy, transportation, or communications infrastructure, could be developed as a planned community consisting of a minimum of one thousand contiguous acres of land, inclusive of flooded land or other forms of redevelopment, without regard to minimum acreage requirements, suitable for planned communities, other residential clusters, light industry, tourism and recreation facilities, retail centers, and locations suitable for manufacturing facilities.

(4)   'Municipality' means an incorporated municipality of this State.

(5)   'Obligations' means bonds, notes, or other evidence of indebtedness issued by the county to carry out a redevelopment project or to refund outstanding obligations.

(6)   'Redevelopment plan' means the comprehensive program of the county for redevelopment intended by the payment of redevelopment costs to reduce or eliminate those conditions which qualified the redevelopment project area as a blighted area, conservation area, or sprawl area, or combination of two or three of them, and to enhance the tax bases of the taxing districts which extend into the project redevelopment area. Each redevelopment plan shall set forth in writing the program to be undertaken to accomplish the objectives and shall include, but not be limited to, estimated redevelopment project costs including long-term project maintenance, as applicable, the anticipated sources of funds to pay costs, the nature and term of any obligations to be issued, the most recent equalized assessed valuation of the project area, an estimate as to the equalized

(7)   'Redevelopment project' means any buildings, improvements, including street, road, and highway improvements, water, sewer and storm drainage facilities, parking facilities, and recreational tourism and recreation-related facilities, energy production or transmission infrastructure, communications technology, and public transportation infrastructure including, but not limited to, rail and airport facilities. Any project or undertaking authorized under Section 6-21-50 may also qualify as a redevelopment project under this chapter. All such projects are to be publicly owned.

(8)   'Redevelopment project area' means an area designated by the county, which is not less in the aggregate than one and one-half acres and in respect to which the county has made a finding that there exist conditions that cause the area to be classified as a blighted area, a conservation area, or a sprawl area, or a combination of two or three of them. The total aggregate amount of all redevelopment project areas of any one county may not exceed five percent of the total acreage of the county but this limit does not apply with respect to these parts of a redevelopment project area comprised of a conservation area or an RRZ sprawl area.

(9)   'Redevelopment project costs' means and includes the sum total of all reasonable or necessary costs incurred or estimated to be incurred and any costs incidental to a redevelopment project. The costs include, without limitation:

(a)   costs of studies and surveys, plans, and specifications; professional service costs including, but not limited to, architectural, engineering, legal, marketing, financial, planning, or special services;

(b)   property assembly costs including, but not limited to, acquisition of land and other property, real or personal, or rights or interest therein, demolition of buildings, and the clearing and grading of land;

(c)   costs of rehabilitation, reconstruction, repair, or remodeling of a redevelopment project;

(d)   costs of the construction and long-term maintenance of a redevelopment project;

(e)   financing costs including, but not limited to, all necessary and incidental expenses related to the issuance of obligations and which may include payment of interest on any obligations issued

(f)   relocation costs, including relocation or removal costs of federal, state, or local government facilities or activities, to the extent that a county determines that relocation costs must be paid or required by federal or state law.

(10)   'Taxing districts' means counties, incorporated municipalities, schools, special purpose districts, and public and any other municipal corporations or districts with the power to levy taxes. Taxing districts include school districts which have taxes levied on their behalf.

(11)   'Vacant land' means any parcel or combination of parcels of real property without industrial, commercial, and residential buildings.

(12)   'County' means any county in the State."
SECTION   4.   Section 31-7-80(A)(7)(a) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 109 of 1999, is amended to read:

"(a)   the redevelopment project area is a blighted, conservation, or sprawl area and that private initiatives alone are unlikely to alleviate these conditions without substantial public assistance,"
SECTION   5.   Section 31-7-120 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 109 of 1999, is amended to read:

"Section 31-7-120.   Counties and municipalities through intergovernmental agreements may jointly adopt redevelopment plans and authorize obligations as provided under the provisions of this chapter and Chapter 6 of this title. Counties by intergovernmental agreement incorporated into individual county ordinances, may establish a multi-county or regional authority for both the establishing of a redevelopment plan and redevelopment projects if the documented economic impacts of projects extend beyond the boundaries of a single county. All actions to develop such plans and projects must be taken by the governing bodies of the respective counties participating in the grouping or authority pursuant to the contractual terms of the intergovernmental agreements establishing such groupings or authority."
SECTION   6.   The General Assembly takes note that the Tax Increment Financing Act for Counties is enacted both in Chapter 7, Title 31 and Chapter 33 of Title 6 of the 1976 Code. It is the intent of the General Assembly that should legislation enacted in the 116th

"(5)   it would be fair and equitable to finance all or part of the cost of the improvements by an assessment upon the real property within the district, the governing body may establish the area as an improvement district and implement and finance, in whole or in part, an improvement plan in the district in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. However, owner-occupied residential property which is taxed or will be taxed under Section 12-43-220(c) must not be included within an improvement district unless the owner at the time the improvement district is created gives the governing body written permission to include the property within the improvement district."
B.   Section 5-37-40(B) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(B)   If an improvement district is located in a redevelopment project area created under Title 31, Chapter 6, the improvement district being created under the provisions of this chapter must be considered to satisfy items (1) through (5) of subsection (A). The ordinance creating an improvement district may be adopted by a majority of council after a public hearing at which the plan is presented, including the proposed basis and amount of assessment, or upon written petition signed by a majority in number of the owners of real property within the district which is not exempt from ad valorem taxation as provided by law. However, owner-occupied residential property which is taxed or will be taxed under Section 12-43-220(c) must not be included within an improvement district unless the owner at the time the improvement district is created gives the governing body written permission to include the property within the improvement district."
SECTION   8.   Section 5-37-50 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 5-37-50.   The governing body shall, by resolution duly adopted, describe the improvement district and the improvement plan to be effected therein, including any property within the improvement district to be acquired and improved, the projected time schedule for the accomplishment of the improvement plan, the estimated cost thereof and the amount of such cost to be derived from assessments, bonds, or other general funds, together with the proposed basis and

"(4.5)   There exists in or contiguous to many municipalities in the State large tracts of land which served the people of this State and its economy when originally developed and maintained over the generations as agricultural property, contributing food, fiber, timber, and pulpwood, and which now, in an evolving economy and amidst a much smaller, yet vastly more efficient agricultural economy, are in need of redevelopment to provide multiple uses utilizing the redevelopment tools provided in this chapter."
B.   Items (3) and (5) of Section 31-6-20(A) of the 1976 Code are amended to read:

"(3)   There exist in many municipalities of this State blighted and conservation areas; the conservation areas are rapidly deteriorating and declining and may soon become blighted areas if their decline is not checked; the stable economic and physical development of the blighted areas and conservation areas is endangered by the presence of blighting factors as manifested by progressive and advanced deterioration of structures, by the overuse of housing and other facilities, by a lack of physical maintenance of existing structures, by obsolete and inadequate community facilities, and a lack of sound community planning, by obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, excessive tax and special assessment delinquencies, or by a combination of these factors; that as a result of the existence of blighted areas and areas requiring conservation, there is an excessive and disproportionate expenditure of public funds, inadequate public and private investment, unmarketability of property, growth in delinquencies and crime, and substandard housing conditions and zoning law violations in such areas together with an abnormal exodus of families and businesses so that the decline of these areas impairs the value of private investments and

(5)   The use of incremental tax revenues derived from the tax rates of various taxing districts in redevelopment project areas for the payment of redevelopment project costs is of benefit to the taxing districts because taxing districts located in redevelopment project areas would not derive the benefits of an increased assessment base without the benefits of tax increment financing, all surplus tax revenues are turned over to the taxing districts in redevelopment project areas, and all taxing districts benefit from the removal of blighted conditions, and the eradication of conditions requiring conservation measures., and the redevelopment of agricultural areas."
SECTION   10.   Section 31-6-30 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 207 of 2002, is further amended to read:

"Section 31-6-30.   (1)   'Blighted area' means any improved or vacant area within the boundaries of a redevelopment project area located within the territorial limits of the municipality where,:

(a)   if improved, industrial, commercial, and residential buildings or improvements, because of a combination of five or more of the following factors: age; dilapidation; obsolescence; deterioration; illegal use of individual structures; presence of structures below minimum code standards; excessive vacancies; overcrowding of structures and community facilities; lack of necessary transportation infrastructure; presence of or potential environmental hazards; lack of water or wastewater services; inadequate electric, natural gas or other energy services; lack of modern communications infrastructure; lack of ventilation, light, sanitary or storm drainage facilities; inadequate utilities; excessive land coverage; deleterious land use or layout; depreciation of physical maintenance; lack of community planning,; and static or declining land values are detrimental to the public safety, health, morals, or welfare or,;

(b)   if vacant, the sound growth is impaired by:

(i)     a combination of two or more of the following factors: obsolete platting of the vacant land; diversity of ownership of such land; tax and special assessment delinquencies on such land; deterioration of structures or site improvements in neighboring areas adjacent to the vacant land; overcrowding of structures and community facilities in neighboring areas adjacent to the vacant land; lack of necessary transportation infrastructure; presence of or potential environmental hazard; lack of water, or wastewater; lack of storm

(ii)   the area immediately prior to becoming vacant qualified as a blighted area. Any area within a redevelopment plan established by Chapter 10 of Title 31 is deemed to be a blighted area.

(1.5)   'Agricultural area' means any unimproved or vacant area formerly developed and used primarily for agricultural purposes within the boundaries of a redevelopment project area located within the territorial limits of the municipality where redevelopment and sound growth is impaired by a combination of three or more of the following factors: obsolete platting of the land; diversity of ownership of the land; tax and special assessment delinquencies on the land; deterioration of structures or site improvements in neighboring areas adjacent to the land; overcrowding of structures and community facilities in neighboring areas adjacent to the land; lack of necessary transportation infrastructure; presence of or potential environmental hazards; lack of water or wastewater; lack of storm drainage facilities; inadequate electric, natural gas or other energy services; lack of modern communications infrastructure; lack of community planning; agricultural foreclosures; and static or declining land values."

(2)   'Conservation area' means any improved area within the boundaries of a redevelopment project area located within the territorial limits of the municipality that is not yet a blighted area but, because of a combination of three or more of the following factors: dilapidation; obsolescence; deterioration; illegal use of structures; presence of structures below minimum code standards; abandonment; excessive vacancies; overcrowding of structures and community facilities; lack of ventilation, light, or sanitary facilities; inadequate utilities; excessive land coverage; depreciation of physical maintenance; or lack of community planning, is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals, or welfare and may become a blighted area. 'Conservation area' means any improved area or vacant within the boundaries of a redevelopment project area located within the territorial limits of the municipality that is not yet a blighted area where:

(a)   if improved, because of a combination of three or more of the following factors: age; dilapidation; obsolescence; deterioration; illegal use of individual structures; presence of structures below minimum code standards; excessive vacancies; overcrowding of structures and community facilities; lack of necessary transportation infrastructure; presence of or potential environmental hazards; lack of

(b)   if vacant, the sound growth is impaired by a combination of two or more of the following factors: obsolete platting of the vacant land; diversity of ownership of the land; tax and special assessment delinquencies on the land; deterioration of structures or site improvements in neighboring areas adjacent to the vacant land; overcrowding of structures and community facilities in neighboring areas adjacent to the vacant land; lack of necessary transportation infrastructure; presence of or potential environmental hazard; lack of water, or wastewater; lack of storm drainage facilities; inadequate electric and natural gas energy services; and lack of modern communications infrastructure; is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals, or welfare and may become a blighted area.

(3)   'Municipality' means an incorporated municipality of this State.

(4)   'Obligations' means bonds, notes, or other evidence of indebtedness issued by the municipality to carry out a redevelopment project or to refund outstanding obligations.

(5)   'Redevelopment plan' means the comprehensive program of the municipality for redevelopment intended by the payment of redevelopment costs to reduce or eliminate those conditions which qualified the redevelopment project area as a an agricultural area, blighted area, or conservation area or combination thereof, and thereby to enhance the tax bases of the taxing districts which extend into the project redevelopment area. Each redevelopment plan shall set forth in writing the program to be undertaken to accomplish the objectives and shall include, but not be limited to, estimated redevelopment project costs including long-term project maintenance, as applicable, the anticipated sources of funds to pay costs, the nature and term of any obligations to be issued, the most recent equalized assessed valuation of the project area, an estimate as to the equalized assessed valuation after redevelopment, and the general land uses to apply in the redevelopment project area. A redevelopment plan established by Chapter 10 of Title 31 is deemed a redevelopment plan for purposes of this paragraph.

(6)   'Redevelopment project' means any buildings, improvements, including street, road, and highway improvements, water, sewer and storm drainage facilities, parking facilities, and recreational tourism and recreation-related facilities, energy production or transmission infrastructure, communications technology, and public transportation infrastructure including, but not limited to, rail and airport facilities. Any project or undertaking authorized under Section 6-21-50 may also qualify as a redevelopment project under this chapter. All such projects are to be publicly owned. A redevelopment may be located outside of the redevelopment area provided the municipality makes specific findings of benefit to the redevelopment project area and the project area is located within the municipal limits.

(7)   'Redevelopment project area' means an area within the incorporated area of and designated by the municipality, which is not less in the aggregate than one and one-half acres and in respect to which the municipality has made a finding that there exist conditions that cause the area to be classified as an agricultural area, a blighted area or a conservation area, or a combination of both blighted areas and conservation areas thereof. The total aggregate amount of all redevelopment project areas within any one municipality may not exceed five percent of the total acreage of the municipality.

(8)   'Redevelopment project costs' means and includes the sum total of all reasonable or necessary costs incurred or estimated to be incurred and any costs incidental to a redevelopment project. The costs include, without limitation:

(a)   costs of studies and surveys, plans, and specifications; professional service costs including, but not limited to, architectural, engineering, legal, marketing, financial, planning, or special services.

(b)   property assembly costs including, but not limited to, acquisition of land and other property, real or personal, or rights or interest therein, demolition of buildings, and the clearing and grading of land.

(c)   costs of rehabilitation, reconstruction, repair, or remodeling of a redevelopment project.

(d)   costs of the construction and long-term maintenance of a redevelopment project.

(e)   financing costs including, but not limited to, all necessary and incidental expenses related to the issuance of obligations and which may include payment of interest on any obligations issued under the provisions of this chapter accruing during the estimated period of

(f)   relocation costs, including relocation or removal costs of federal, state, or local government facilities or activities, to the extent that a municipality determines that relocation costs must be paid or required by federal or state law.

(9)   'Taxing districts' means counties, incorporated municipalities, schools, special purpose districts, and public and any other municipal corporations or districts with the power to levy taxes. Taxing districts include school districts which have taxes levied on their behalf.

(10)   'Vacant land' means any parcel or combination of parcels of real property without industrial, commercial, and residential buildings."
SECTION   11.   Item (g) of the first undesignated paragraph of Section 31-6-80 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(g)   findings that:

(i)     the redevelopment project area is a an agricultural, blighted or conservation area and that private initiatives are unlikely to alleviate these conditions without substantial public assistance,;

(ii)   property values in the area would remain static or decline without public intervention,; and

(iii)   redevelopment is in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the municipality.

Before approving any redevelopment plan under this chapter, the governing body of the municipality must hold a public hearing on the redevelopment plan after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the municipality and any taxing district affected by the redevelopment plan is located not less than fifteen days and not more than thirty days prior to the hearing. The notice shall include:

(1)   the time and place of the public hearing;

(2)   the boundaries of the proposed redevelopment project area;

(3)   a notification that all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing;

(4)   a description of the redevelopment plan and redevelopment project; and

(5)   the maximum estimated term of obligations to be issued under the redevelopment plan."

Rep. FUNDERBURK explained the amendment.

Rep. FUNDERBURK continued speaking.

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

The Senate amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:

S. 145 (Word version) -- Senator Mescher: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-13-390, TO PROVIDE THAT NO MORE THAN ONE ARKANSAS BLUE CATFISH OVER THIRTY-FOUR INCHES MAY BE TAKEN FROM THE WATERS OF LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE BY ANY ONE PERSON IN ONE DAY, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION APPLY TO COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN.

Rep. WITHERSPOON moved to adjourn debate upon the Senate Amendments until Tuesday, May 24, which was agreed to.

The Senate amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:

H. 3577 (Word version) -- Reps. Witherspoon, Frye, Hiott, Ott and Vick: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 46-13-45, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PESTICIDE REGISTRATION FEES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE ANNUAL BASIC REGISTRATION FEE, TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR

Rep. WITHERSPOON moved to adjourn debate upon the Senate Amendments until Thursday, May 19, which was agreed to.

The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up:

H. 4080 (Word version) -- Reps. Littlejohn, Davenport, Mahaffey and Sinclair: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 295 IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY FROM ITS INTERSECTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 56 TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH COUNTY ROAD C-1207 (DAIRY RIDGE ROAD) "CAMP CROFT VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY" AND TO ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ALONG THIS PORTION OF HIGHWAY THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "CAMP CROFT VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY".

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the members of the General Assembly request that the Department of Transportation name the portion of South Carolina Highway 295 in Spartanburg County from its intersection with South Carolina Highway 56 to its intersection with County Road C-1207 (Dairy Ridge Road) "Camp Croft Veterans Memorial Highway" and to erect appropriate markers or signs along this portion of highway that contain the words "Camp Croft Veterans Memorial Highway".

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Department of Transportation.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and sent to the Senate.

The motion period was dispensed with on motion of Rep. LITTLEJOHN.

The following Bill was taken up:

S. 1 (Word version) -- Senators Ryberg, Hutto, Lourie, Drummond, Land, Moore, Matthews, McGill, O'Dell, Reese, Hayes, Gregory, Jackson, Martin, Rankin, Short, Richardson, Ritchie, Cromer, J. V. Smith, Leatherman, Fair and Patterson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-6450, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CHILD PASSENGER RESTRAINT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A FINE FOR A VIOLATION OF THE LAW MUST NOT BE WAIVED; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-6530, RELATING TO EXCEPTIONS TO THE MANDATORY USE OF SAFETY BELTS AND CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT OCCUPANTS OF THE BACK SEAT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE SAFETY BELT REQUIREMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-6540, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SAFETY BELT LAW AND CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL FUNDS COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION MUST BE DEPOSITED IN THE STATE GENERAL FUND, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MAY NOT SEARCH A VEHICLE STOPPED SOLELY FOR A PRIMARY SAFETY BELT VIOLATION, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MAY STOP A DRIVER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR ANY PRIMARY VIOLATION OF A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES A DRIVER OR PASSENGER TO WEAR A SAFETY BELT OR A CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM, A PERSON MUST NOT BE CONVICTED FOR A PRIMARY SAFETY BELT VIOLATION EXCEPT UPON PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, A VIOLATION OF THE MANDATORY SAFETY BELT LAW MAY BE TRIED BEFORE EITHER A JUDGE OR A JURY, AND A CONVICTION FOR A VIOLATION OF THE STATE'S MANDATORY SAFETY BELT LAW IS APPEALABLE TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

The Education and Public Works Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1B (Doc Name COUNCIL\SWB\6530CM05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding the following appropriately numbered SECTION:

"Section 56-5-6560.   (A)   Any time a motor vehicle is stopped by a state or local law enforcement officer without a citation being issued or an arrest being made, the officer who initiated the stop must complete a data collection form designed by the Department of Public Safety that must include information regarding the age, gender, and race or ethnicity of the driver of the vehicle.

(B)   The Department of Public Safety shall develop and maintain a database for the information submitted to the department under subsection (A) and prepare a report to be submitted annually to the General Assembly regarding motor vehicle stops using the collected information.

(C)   The General Assembly shall have the authority to withhold any state funds or federal pass-through funds from any state or local law enforcement agency that fails to comply with the requirements of this section." /
Amend the bill further, by deleting Section 56-5-6540(A), as contained in SECTION 4, page 3, and inserting:
/ (A)   A person who violates is adjudicated to be in violation of the provisions of this article, upon conviction, must be fined not more than twenty-five dollars, all or part no part of which may be suspended. No court costs, assessments, or surcharges may be assessed against the a person convicted who violates a provision of this article. No A person may must not be fined more than fifty dollars for any one incident of one or more violations of the provisions of this article. No A custodial arrest for a violation of this article may must not be made, except upon a warrant issued for failure to appear in court when summoned or for failure to pay an imposed fine. A conviction for violation of this article does not constitute a criminal offense. Notwithstanding Section 56-1-640, a conviction for a violation of this article must not be:

(1)   included in the offender's motor vehicle records maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles or in the criminal records maintained by SLED; or

(2)   reported to the offender's motor vehicle insurer. /
When amended Section 56-5-6540(A) shall read:
/ (A)   A person who violates is adjudicated to be in violation of the provisions of this article, upon conviction, must be fined not more than twenty-five dollars, all or part no part of which may be suspended. No court costs, assessments, or surcharges may be assessed against the a person convicted who violates a provision of this article. No A person

(1)   included in the offender's motor vehicle records maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles or in the criminal records maintained by SLED; or

(2)   reported to the offender's motor vehicle insurer. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. TOWNSEND explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. KENNEDY proposed the following Amendment No. 2B (Doc Name COUNCIL\SWB\6540CM05), which was ruled out of order:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding the following appropriately numbered SECTION:
/ SECTION   __.   Notwithstanding another provision of law, the Department of Insurance shall obtain, for a three-year period that begins on July 1, 2005, data from the insurance industry and the State's law enforcement agencies relating to motor vehicle accidents that involve passengers who were and were not secured in the motor vehicle by a vehicle passenger restrain system. The department shall use this information to determine the amount of money the State's insurance industry has saved during this period from the reduced number of motor vehicle fatalities and injuries that resulted from motor vehicle passengers' use of vehicle passenger restraint systems and determine whether the insurance industry has passed these savings along to its motor vehicle insurance policy holders in the form of reduced insurance rates. If the department determines that the savings have not been passed along to the industry's policy holders, then the department is directed to take appropriate action to ensure that these savings are passed along to the industry's policy holders in the form of lower motor vehicle insurance rates. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. TOWNSEND raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 2B was out of order in that it was not germane to the Bill.
Rep. KENNEDY argued contra.
SPEAKER WILKINS sustained the Point of Order and ruled the amendment out of order.

Reps. TOWNSEND, GOVAN, SCOTT, HASKINS and OWENS proposed the following Amendment No. 4B (Doc Name COUNCIL\ BBM\10902MM05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/ SECTION   __   Chapter 5 of Title 56 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding Section 56-5-6565:

"Section 56-5-6565.   (A)   The Department of Public Safety shall develop and implement education programs designed to create awareness of the state's safety belt laws and to increase safety belt use in rural and ethnically diverse areas throughout the State. The Department of Public Safety, when securing consultant, contractor, and subcontractor services for developing and implementing programs related to safety belts laws, shall select providers that have experience working with the communities the provider is procured to target. The Department of Public Safety shall confer with members of the targeted communities for input on the development of effective safety education programs and on the identification of providers that have the appropriate experience with the targeted communities. Contracts made with providers selected for the purposes of this subsection are exempt from the provisions of the Consolidated Procurement Code, Chapter 35 of Title 11.

(B)   The Department of Transportation may develop additional programs to promote safety belt use or may coordinate with the Department of Public Safety to fund and carry out the programs jointly. If there is coordination between the two departments, the Department of Public Safety has final authority on all issues, including but not limited to, program content and dissemination, allocation of funds, and procurement procedures.

(C)   The Department of Public Safety may use available federal funds or private sector contributions to meet the requirements of subsection (A). The General Assembly may provide funds to

Rep. TOWNSEND explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. HINSON proposed the following Amendment No. 5B (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20545SD05):
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 56-5-6540 of the 1976, as contained in SECTION 4, by striking subsection (B) which begins on line 16, page 4, and inserting:
/   (E)(B)   A violation of this article does not may constitute negligence per se or contributory negligence, and is not admissible as evidence in a civil action.   /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. HINSON explained the amendment.
Rep. LOFTIS spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. HINSON moved to adjourn debate on the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. HALEY and CLEMMONS proposed the following Amendment No. 6B(Doc Name COUNCIL\NBD\11832CM05), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION   1.   Section 56-5-6450 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-5-6450.   No A person shall not be subjected to a custodial arrest for violation of violating the provisions of this article. Any A person violating adjudicated to be in violation of the provisions of this article shall upon conviction must be fined not more than twenty-five dollars, no part of which may be suspended. The court

"Section 56-5-6530.   The provisions of this article do not apply to:

(1)   a driver or occupant who possesses a written verification from a physician that he is unable to wear a safety belt for physical or medical reasons;

(2)   medical or rescue personnel attending to injured or sick individuals in an emergency vehicle when operating in an emergency situation as well as the injured or sick individuals;

(3)   school, church, or day care buses;

(4)   public transportation vehicles except taxis;

(5)   occupants of vehicles in parades;

(6)   United States mail carriers;

(7)   an occupant for which no safety belt is available because all belts are being used by other occupants;

(8)   a driver or occupant frequently stopping or leaving a motor vehicle for pick up or delivery purposes;

(9)   occupants of the back seat of a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is equipped with a shoulder harness in addition to the lap belt;

(109)   children under six years of age who must be properly restrained as provided by Article 47, Chapter 5 of Title 56.

(1110)   a driver or occupants in a vehicle not originally equipped with safety belts."
SECTION   3.   Section 56-5-6540 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-5-6540.   (A)   A person who violates is adjudicated to be in violation of the provisions of this article, upon conviction, must be fined not more than twenty-five dollars, all or part no part of which may be suspended. No court costs, assessments, or surcharges may be assessed against the a person convicted who violates a provision of this article. No A person may must not be fined more than fifty dollars for any one incident of one or more violations of the provisions of this article. No A custodial arrest for a violation of this article may must not be made, except upon a warrant issued for failure to appear in court when summoned or for failure to pay an imposed fine. A conviction for violation of this article does not constitute a criminal offense.

(B)   A law enforcement officer must not stop a driver for a violation of this article in the absence of another violation of the motor vehicle laws except as follows:

(1)   when the officer has probable cause for a violation of this article based on his clear and unobstructed view of a driver seventeen years of age or younger or an occupant of the motor vehicle seventeen years of age or younger who is not wearing a safety belt or is not secured in a child restraint system as required by Article 47; or

(2)   when the stop is made in conjunction with a driver's license check or registration check conducted at a checkpoint established to stop all drivers on a certain road for a period of time.

(C)   A citation for a violation of this article, except for a citation issued pursuant to a stop made under subsection (B)(1), must not be issued without citing the violation that initially caused the officer to effect the enforcement stop.

(D)   A citation issued pursuant to a stop made under subsection (B)(1) may be issued without citing any other violation.

(E)   A violation of this article does is not constitute negligence per se or contributory negligence, and is not admissible as evidence in a civil action.

(F)   No A vehicle, driver, or occupant in a vehicle may be searched solely because of a violation of this article or a stop made under subsection (B)(1)."
SECTION   4.   Section 56-5-6430 of the 1976 Code is repealed.
SECTION   5.   The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.

Rep. HALEY explained the amendment.
Rep. OWENS spoke against the amendment.
Rep. J. E. SMITH spoke against the amendment.
Rep. HALEY spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. TOWNSEND moved to table the amendment.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anthony
Bales                  Battle                 Bingham
Bowers                 Brady                  Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Ceips                  Chalk
Clark                  Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cotty                  Delleney
Emory                  Frye                   Funderburk
Govan                  Hagood                 Harrell
Harrison               Haskins                Hayes
J. Hines               Hiott                  Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jefferson
Jennings               Lee                    Littlejohn
Lucas                  Mack                   McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Norman
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
Rhoad                  Rivers                 Rutherford
Scarborough            Scott                  Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            F. N. Smith
G. M. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Townsend               Vick

Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
Whitmire               Wilkins

Those who voted in the negative are:

Altman                 Bailey                 Barfield
Cato                   Chellis                Clemmons
Coates                 Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Duncan                 Edge
Haley                  Hamilton               Hardwick
Hinson                 Kirsh                  Leach
Limehouse              Loftis                 Mahaffey
Merrill                Perry                  M. A. Pitts
Rice                   Simrill                G. R. Smith
Thompson               Toole                  Tripp
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
White                  Witherspoon            Young

So, the amendment was tabled.

Reps. HAGOOD, HINSON, G. R. SMITH and CATO proposed the following Amendment No. 3B (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\ 10885MM05), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 56-5-6540 as contained in SECTION 3, by deleting subsection (B) in its entirety and inserting:
/   (E)(B)   A   An adjudicated violation of this article does not constitute negligence per se or contributory negligence, and is not but is admissible as evidence of failure to mitigate damages in a civil action. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. HAGOOD explained the amendment.

Rep. M. A. PITTS spoke against the amendment.

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

Rep. M. A. PITTS explained the amendment.

Rep. OWENS moved to table the amendment.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anthony
Bales                  Ballentine             Battle
Bingham                Bowers                 Brady
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
J. Brown               R. Brown               Clark
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Delleney               Emory                  Frye
Funderburk             Govan                  Hagood
Haskins                Hayes                  J. Hines
Hiott                  Hosey                  Howard
Jefferson              Jennings               Kennedy
Kirsh                  Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Loftis
Lucas                  Mack                   McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Norman                 Owens                  Phillips
Pinson                 Rhoad                  Rice
Rivers                 Rutherford             Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            F. N. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Stewart

Talley                 Taylor                 Townsend
Tripp                  Vaughn                 Vick
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Altman                 Bailey                 Barfield
Cato                   Ceips                  Chalk
Chellis                Clemmons               Coates
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Duncan                 Edge                   Haley
Hamilton               Hardwick               Harrell
Hinson                 Huggins                Mahaffey
Merrill                Parks                  Perry
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Sandifer
Scarborough            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
Thompson               Toole                  Umphlett
Viers                  White                  Young

So, the amendment was tabled.

Rep. M. A. PITTS proposed the following Amendment No. 9B (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20550SD05), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 56-5-6540(A) of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 4, by striking the last two sentences of the subsection and inserting:
/ A conviction for violation of this article does not constitute a criminal offense constitutes a two-point misdemeanor traffic violation. Notwithstanding Section 56-1-640, a conviction for a violation of this article must not be:

(1)   included in the offender's motor vehicle records maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles or in the criminal records maintained by SLED; and

(2)   reported to the offender's motor vehicle insurer. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. TOWNSEND moved to table the amendment.

Rep. M. A. PITTS demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Ballentine
Battle                 Bingham                Bowers
Brady                  Branham                G. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Clark                  Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Delleney
Emory                  Govan                  Hagood
Hamilton               Haskins                J. Hines
Hiott                  Hosey                  Huggins
Jefferson              Jennings               Kennedy
Kirsh                  Leach                  Lee
Littlejohn             Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Norman
Owens                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            Rice                   Rivers
Rutherford             Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Stewart
Talley                 Townsend               Vaughn
Vick                   Weeks                  Whipper
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Altman                 Barfield               Breeland
Chalk                  Chellis                Clemmons

Coates                 Dantzler               Davenport
Duncan                 Edge                   Frye
Haley                  Hardwick               Hinson
Limehouse              Loftis                 Merrill
Parks                  Perry                  M. A. Pitts
Rhoad                  Scarborough            G. R. Smith
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Umphlett               Viers                  Walker
White

So, the amendment was tabled.

Rep. COATES proposed the following Amendment No. 10B (Doc Name COUNCIL\GGS\22211HTC05), which was tabled:
/   Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 56-5-6540(A) of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 4, by striking /twenty-five/ in the first sentence of the subsection and inserting /twenty-five one hundred / and by striking /fifty/ in the third sentence of the subsection and inserting /fiftytwo hundred   /
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 56-5-6540(A) of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 4, by striking the last two sentences of the subsection and inserting:
/   A conviction for violation of this article does not constitute a criminal offense constitutes a two-point misdemeanor traffic violation. Notwithstanding Section 56-1-640, a conviction for a violation of this article must not be:

(1)   included in the offender's motor vehicle records maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles or in the criminal records maintained by SLED; and

(2)   reported to the offender's motor vehicle insurer. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. MERRILL explained the amendment.

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

Rep. PERRRY proposed the following Amendment No. 12B (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20551SD05), which was tabled:

Rep. PERRY explained the amendment.

Rep. OWENS moved to table the amendment.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Anthony                Battle
Bowers                 Brady                  Branham
Breeland               Ceips                  Chalk
Clark                  Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cotty                  Davenport              Delleney
Emory                  Funderburk             Govan
Hamilton               Harrison               Haskins
Hayes                  J. Hines               Hiott
Hosey                  Jefferson              Jennings
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Leach
Lee                    Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Norman                 Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Pinson
Rivers                 Scott                  Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Stewart                Taylor                 Townsend
Vick                   Walker                 Whipper
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Allen                  Altman                 Anderson
Bailey                 Bales                  Ballentine
Barfield               Bingham                G. Brown
Cato                   Chellis                Clemmons
Coates                 Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Duncan                 Edge
Frye                   Hagood                 Haley
Hardwick               Hinson                 Huggins
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Loftis
McCraw                 Merrill                Neilson
Perry                  Phillips               E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rice                   Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Simrill
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            Talley
Thompson               Toole                  Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Weeks
White                  Young

So, the amendment was tabled.

Reps. HALEY and CLEMMONS proposed the following Amendment No. 13B (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\10916CM05), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION   1.   Section 56-5-6450 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-5-6450.   No A person shall not be subjected to a custodial arrest for violation of violating the provisions of this article. Any A person violating adjudicated to be in violation of the provisions of this article shall upon conviction must be fined not more than twenty-five dollars, no part of which may be suspended. The court shall waive any fine against any person who, before, or upon the appearance date on the summons, supplies the court with evidence of acquisition, purchase or rental of a child restraint system meeting the requirements of this article."
SECTION   2.   Section 56-5-6530 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-5-6530.   The provisions of this article do not apply to:

(1)   a driver or occupant who possesses a written verification from a physician that he is unable to wear a safety belt for physical or medical reasons;

(2)   medical or rescue personnel attending to injured or sick individuals in an emergency vehicle when operating in an emergency situation as well as the injured or sick individuals;

(3)   school, church, or day care buses;

(4)   public transportation vehicles except taxis;

(5)   occupants of vehicles in parades;

(6)   United States mail carriers;

(7)   an occupant for which no safety belt is available because all belts are being used by other occupants;

(8)   a driver or occupant frequently stopping or leaving a motor vehicle for pick up or delivery purposes;

(9)   occupants of the back seat of a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is equipped with a shoulder harness in addition to the lap belt;

(109)   children under six years of age who must be properly restrained as provided by Article 47, Chapter 5 of Title 56.

(1110)   a driver or occupants in a vehicle not originally equipped with safety belts."
SECTION   3.   Section 56-5-6540 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-5-6540.   (A)   A person who violates is adjudicated to be in violation of the provisions of this article, upon conviction, must be fined not more than twenty-five dollars, all or part no part of which may be suspended. No court costs, assessments, or surcharges may be assessed against the a person convicted who violates a provision of this article. No A person may must not be fined more than fifty dollars for any one incident of one or more violations of the provisions of this article. No A custodial arrest for a violation of this article may must not be made, except upon a warrant issued for failure to appear in court when summoned or for failure to pay an imposed fine. A conviction for violation of this article does not constitute a criminal offense. Notwithstanding Section 56-1-640, a conviction for a violation of this article must not be included in the offender's motor vehicle records maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles or in the criminal records maintained by SLED.

(B)   A law enforcement officer must not stop a driver for a violation of this article in the absence of another violation of the motor vehicle laws except as follows:

(1)   when the officer has probable cause for a violation of this article based on his clear and unobstructed view of a driver seventeen years of age or younger or an occupant of the motor vehicle seventeen years of age or younger who is not wearing a safety belt or is not secured in a child restraint system as required by Article 47; or

(2)   when the stop is made in conjunction with a driver's license check or registration check conducted at a checkpoint established to stop all drivers on a certain road for a period of time.

(C)   A citation for a violation of this article, except for a citation issued pursuant to a stop made under subsection (B)(1), must not be issued without citing the violation that initially caused the officer to effect the enforcement stop.

(D)   A citation issued pursuant to a stop made under subsection (B)(1) may be issued without citing any other violation.

(E)   A violation of this article does is not constitute negligence per se or contributory negligence, and is not admissible as evidence in a civil action.

(F)   No vehicle, driver, or occupant in a vehicle may be searched solely because of a violation of this article or a stop made under subsection (B)(1)."
SECTION   4.   Section 56-5-6430 of the 1976 Code is repealed.
SECTION   5.   The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.
SECTION   6.   This act takes effect six months after the date of approval by the Governor./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. J. E. SMITH spoke against the amendment.

Rep. TOWNSEND moved to table the amendment.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Battle
Bowers                 Brady                  Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               R. Brown
Ceips                  Chalk                  Clark
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cotty                  Davenport              Emory
Funderburk             Govan                  Hagood
Hamilton               Haskins                Hayes
J. Hines               Hiott                  Hosey
Huggins                Jefferson              Jennings
Kirsh                  Leach                  Littlejohn
Lucas                  Mack                   McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Norman                 Ott                    Owens
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
Rhoad                  Rivers                 Rutherford
Scarborough            Scott                  Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            F. N. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Townsend
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Altman                 Bailey                 Barfield
Bingham                Cato                   Chellis

Clemmons               Dantzler               Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Frye
Haley                  Hardwick               Harrell
Hinson                 Limehouse              Loftis
Mahaffey               Merrill                Moody-Lawrence
Perry                  M. A. Pitts            Rice
Sandifer               Simrill                G. R. Smith
Thompson               Toole                  Tripp
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
White                  Young

So, the amendment was tabled.

Rep. RICE proposed the following Amendment No. 15B (Doc Name COUNCIL\DKA\3448CM05), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 1 and inserting:
/ SECTION   1.   Section 56-5-6450 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-5-6450.   No A person shall not be subjected to a custodial arrest for violation of violating the provisions of this article. Any A person violating adjudicated to be in violation of the provisions of this article shall upon conviction must be fined not more than twenty-five dollars, no part of which may be suspended. The court shall waive any fine against any person who, before, or upon the appearance date on the summons, supplies the court with evidence of acquisition, purchase or rental of a child restraint system meeting the requirements of this article. Court costs, assessments, or surcharges may not be assessed against a person who violates a provision of this article. All proceeds collected for violations of this provision must be deposited in the state general fund." /
Amend further by deleting Section 56-5-6540(A) and inserting:
/ (A)   A person who violates is adjudicated to be in violation of the provisions of this article, upon conviction, must be fined not more than twenty-five dollars, all or part no part of which may be suspended. No court costs, assessments, or surcharges may be assessed against the a person convicted who violates a provision of this article. All proceeds collected for violations of this provision must be deposited in the state general fund. No A person may must not be fined more than fifty

(1)   included in the offender's motor vehicle records maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles or in the criminal records maintained by SLED; or

(2)   reported to the offender's motor vehicle insurer. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. RICE explained the amendment.
Rep. COATES spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. TOWNSEND moved to table the amendment.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allen                  Anderson               Anthony
Ballentine             Battle                 Bingham
Bowers                 Brady                  Branham
Breeland               R. Brown               Ceips
Clark                  Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cotty                  Emory                  Funderburk
Govan                  J. Hines               Hiott
Hosey                  Huggins                Jefferson
Jennings               Kennedy                Kirsh
Lee                    Limehouse              Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Norman                 Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            Rhoad
Rivers                 Rutherford             Scott
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith

F. N. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Stewart                Taylor
Townsend               Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Agnew                  Altman                 Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               G. Brown
Cato                   Chalk                  Chellis
Clemmons               Coates                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Frye                   Hagood
Haley                  Hamilton               Hardwick
Haskins                Leach                  Littlejohn
Loftis                 McCraw                 Merrill
Neilson                Perry                  M. A. Pitts
Rice                   Sandifer               Scarborough
Simrill                G. R. Smith            Talley
Thompson               Toole                  Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  White
Young

So, the amendment was tabled.

Rep. RUTHERFORD proposed the following Amendment No. 16B (Doc Name COUNCIL\MS\7547AHB05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 56-5-6540(F)(C), as contained in SECTION 4, by striking the last sentence.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. RUTHERFORD explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. SIMRILL proposed the following Amendment No. 17B (Doc Name COUNCIL\GGS\22213HTC05), which was rejected:

Rep. SIMRILL explained the amendment.

Rep. COATES moved that the House recede until 2:30 p.m.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Altman                 Barfield               G. Brown
Cato                   Chellis                Clemmons
Coates                 Davenport              Edge
Frye                   Hamilton               Harrell
Howard                 Limehouse              Loftis
Merrill                M. A. Pitts            Rhoad
Rice                   Rutherford             G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            Talley                 Taylor
Vaughn                 Viers

Those who voted in the negative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bailey                 Bales
Ballentine             Battle                 Bingham
Brady                  Branham                Breeland
R. Brown               Ceips                  Chalk
Clark                  Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Delleney               Duncan
Emory                  Funderburk             Govan
Hagood                 Haley                  Hardwick
Harrison               Haskins                J. Hines
Hinson                 Hiott                  Hosey

Huggins                Jefferson              Jennings
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Leach
Lee                    Littlejohn             Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               McCraw
McLeod                 Miller                 J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Norman
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
Rivers                 Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            F. N. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Stewart
Thompson               Townsend               Umphlett
Vick                   Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

So, the House refused to recede.

Rep. ALTMAN spoke in favor of the amendment.

The amendment was then rejected by a division vote of 32 to 57.

Rep. TOWNSEND moved cloture on the entire matter.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Battle                 Brady                  Branham
Ceips                  Chalk                  Clark
Cotty                  Emory                  Govan
Hagood                 Harrison               Haskins
Hinson                 Huggins                Lee
Lucas                  McGee                  J. M. Neal
Owens                  Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
Rhoad                  Scott                  Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            W. D. Smith

Stewart                Taylor                 Townsend
Walker                 Whitmire               Wilkins

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allen                  Altman                 Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Ballentine
Barfield               Bingham                Bowers
Breeland               G. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Chellis                Clemmons
Coates                 Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Frye                   Haley                  Hamilton
Hardwick               Harrell                J. Hines
Hiott                  Hosey                  Howard
Jefferson              Kennedy                Kirsh
Leach                  Littlejohn             Loftis
Mack                   Mahaffey               McCraw
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Parks                  Perry
Phillips               M. A. Pitts            Rice
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Simrill                F. N. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
Talley                 Thompson               Tripp
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Vick
Viers                  Weeks                  Whipper
White

So, cloture was not ordered.

Rep. SIMRILL proposed the following Amendment No. 18B (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20553SD05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 56-5-6530 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 3 beginning on line 7 of page 3, by striking:

Rep. SIMRILL explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. MERRILL proposed the following Amendment No. 19B (Doc Name COUNCIL\MS\7548AHB05), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking in its entirety the unnumbered SECTION adding Section 56-5-6560, page 1-1, beginning on line 30.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. MERRILL explained the amendment.

Rep. TOWNSEND moved to table the amendment.

Rep. COBB-HUNTER demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Anderson               Bales
Ballentine             Battle                 Bingham
Bowers                 Brady                  Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               R. Brown
Ceips                  Chalk                  Clark
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cotty                  Delleney               Emory
Funderburk             Govan                  Hagood
Haley                  Harrison               Haskins
J. Hines               Hiott                  Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jefferson
Jennings               Kennedy                Kirsh
Leach                  Limehouse              Lucas

Mack                   McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Norman                 Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            Rhoad                  Rice
Rutherford             Scarborough            Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Toole                  Townsend
Vick                   Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Altman                 Bailey                 Barfield
Cato                   Chellis                Clemmons
Coates                 Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Duncan                 Edge
Frye                   Hamilton               Hardwick
Harrell                Hinson                 Loftis
Mahaffey               Merrill                M. A. Pitts
Sandifer               G. R. Smith            Thompson
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
White                  Young

So, the amendment was tabled.

Rep. MCGEE moved to reconsider the vote whereby Amendment 17B was rejected.

Rep. G. M. SMITH moved that the House recede until 3:00 p.m.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allen                  Bailey                 Bales
Ballentine             Barfield               Brady
G. Brown               Cato                   Chalk
Chellis                Clemmons               Coleman
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Edge                   Frye                   Hagood
Haley                  Hamilton               Harrell
Hinson                 Hosey                  Jefferson
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Loftis                 Mahaffey               Merrill
Moody-Lawrence         Perry                  Rhoad
Rice                   Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Simrill                F. N. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Tripp                  Umphlett               Vaughn
Vick                   Viers

Those who voted in the negative are:

Agnew                  Altman                 Anderson
Anthony                Battle                 Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
Ceips                  Clark                  Clyburn
Coates                 Cobb-Hunter            Cooper
Delleney               Duncan                 Emory
Funderburk             Govan                  Hardwick
Harrison               Haskins                Hayes
J. Hines               Hiott                  Howard
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy

Kirsh                  Leach                  Lucas
Mack                   McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Norman
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rivers                 Scott
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Stewart                Townsend               Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

So, the House refused to recede.

Rep. VIERS proposed the following Amendment No. 21B (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20555SD05), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 56-5-6530 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 3 on line 1 of page 3, by striking:
/   (3)   school, church, or day care buses; /
and inserting:
/   (3)   school, church, or day care buses;/
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. VIERS explained the amendment.

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

Rep. PERRY proposed the following Amendment No. 23B (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20556SD05), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 56-5-6530 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 3 on line 1 of page 3, by striking item (3) and inserting:
/   (3)   school, church, or day care buses purchased and placed in service before January 1, 2006;/

Rep. PERRY explained the amendment.
Rep. PERRY spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. OWENS spoke against the amendment.

Rep. TOWNSEND moved to table the amendment.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Anderson               Bales
Battle                 Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               R. Brown               Ceips
Chalk                  Clark                  Clyburn
Cotty                  Davenport              Delleney
Emory                  Funderburk             Govan
Hamilton               Hardwick               Harrison
Haskins                J. Hines               Hiott
Hosey                  Howard                 Jefferson
Jennings               Kirsh                  Leach
Lee                    Littlejohn             Lucas
Mack                   McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Norman                 Owens
Pinson                 Rivers                 Scott
Sinclair               Skelton                G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Stewart                Toole                  Townsend

Walker                 Whipper                Whitmire
Wilkins

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Ballentine             Barfield
Bingham                G. Brown               Cato
Chellis                Clemmons               Coates
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Duncan                 Edge
Frye                   Hagood                 Haley
Huggins                Kennedy                Limehouse
Loftis                 Mahaffey               McCraw
Merrill                Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rhoad                  Rice
Scarborough            D. C. Smith            F. N. Smith
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Vick
Viers                  Weeks                  White
Witherspoon            Young

So, the amendment was tabled.

Rep. HINSON proposed the following Amendment No. 5B (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20545SD05), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 56-5-6540 of the 1976, as contained in SECTION 4, by striking subsection (B) which begins on line 16, page 4, and inserting:
/   (E)(B)   A violation of this article does not may constitute negligence per se or contributory negligence, and is not admissible as evidence in a civil action.   /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

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

Rep. ALTMAN continued speaking.
Rep. HINSON spoke against the Bill.
Rep. BALLENTINE spoke in favor of the Bill.
Rep. M. A. PITTS spoke against the Bill.
Rep. EMORY spoke in favor of the Bill.
Rep. SKELTON spoke in favor of the Bill.

Rep. SKELTON continued speaking.
Rep. CLYBURN spoke in favor of the Bill.
Rep. BARFIELD spoke against the Bill.

Pursuant to Rule 7.7 the Yeas and Nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Ballentine
Battle                 Bingham                Bowers
Brady                  Branham                Breeland
J. Brown               R. Brown               Ceips
Chalk                  Clark                  Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cotty
Delleney               Edge                   Emory
Funderburk             Govan                  Hagood
Hardwick               Harrison               Haskins
Hayes                  J. Hines               Hiott
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Jefferson              Jennings               Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Norman                 Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Pinson

E. H. Pitts            Rivers                 Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Stewart                Taylor
Toole                  Townsend               Vick
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Altman                 Bailey                 Barfield
G. Brown               Cato                   Clemmons
Coates                 Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Duncan                 Frye
Haley                  Hamilton               Hinson
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Littlejohn
Loftis                 McCraw                 Merrill
Phillips               M. A. Pitts            Rhoad
Rice                   Sandifer               Scarborough
Talley                 Thompson               Tripp
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
White

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

I intended to vote in favor of S. 1 (the seatbelt bill) but pressed the vote button on my desk too late.

Rep. Robert W. Harrell, Jr.

I am away this week at Harvard University, but if I could have been in Session this week when Senate Bill 1 (the seatbelt bill) was debated, I would have voted in favor of the Bill.

Rep. Becky R. Martin

Rep. CATO moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 19, which was adopted:

S. 348 (Word version) -- Senators Thomas and J. V. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 45-2-70 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE POSTING OF RULES IN LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS, TO REQUIRE THE POSTING OF A NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 45-5-80; TO AMEND CHAPTER 5, TITLE 45 BY ADDING SECTION 45-5-80 TO PROVIDE THAT ALL LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS WITHOUT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM MUST POST A NOTICE IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE AT OR NEAR THE GUEST REGISTRATION DESK; TO AMEND CHAPTER 5, TITLE 45 BY ADDING SECTION 45-5-90 TO REQUIRE THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT PROVIDE PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR HOTELS THAT HAVE WATER SPRINKLER SYSTEMS THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION STANDARDS MUST INCLUDE A STATEMENT IN THE INSURED'S INSURANCE RENEWAL NOTICE THAT CALCULATES THE PREMIUM SAVINGS THE INSURED WOULD REALIZE IF THE MOTEL'S SPRINKLER SYSTEM WAS COMPLIANT WITH THOSE STANDARDS.

The following Bill was taken up:

S. 618 (Word version) -- Senators Alexander, Setzler, Short, Verdin and Knotts: A BILL TO ENACT THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PRESERVATION AND INVESTMENT REFORM ACT BY AMENDING SECTION 9-1-1790, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE EARNING LIMIT APPLICABLE TO RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM WHO RETURN TO COVERED EMPLOYMENT, SO AS TO REQUIRE THESE MEMBERS TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS; BY AMENDING SECTION 8-11-620, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LUMP SUM PAYMENTS FOR ANNUAL LEAVE FOR STATE EMPLOYEES, SO AS TO POSTPONE THIS LUMP SUM FOR TERI PARTICIPANTS UNTIL THE EMPLOYEE ENDS TERI PARTICIPATION; BY AMENDING

"(D)   A retired member of the South Carolina Retirement System who is hired by an agency to fill all or some fraction of a full-time equivalent (FTE) position is allowed fifteen working days sick leave each calendar year for use during the calendar year. Such an employee hired after the beginning of a calendar year is allowed a pro-rata share of sick leave at the rate of one and one-fourth working days leave for each full month remaining in the calendar year. A retired member of the South Carolina Retirement System who is granted sick leave according to this subsection may not carry over sick leave into future years."
SECTION   2.   Section 8-11-610 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding a new paragraph at the end to read:

"A retired member of the South Carolina Retirement System who is hired by an agency to fill all or some fraction of a full-time equivalent (FTE) position is allowed fifteen working days annual leave each calendar year for use during the calendar year. Such an employee who is hired after the beginning of a calendar year is allowed a pro-rata share of annual leave at the rate of one and one-fourth working days leave for each full month remaining in the calendar year. An employee allowed annual leave pursuant to this paragraph may not carry over annual leave into future years."
SECTION   3.   Section 8-11-620(A) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 356 of 2002, is further amended to read:

"(A)(1)   Upon termination from state employment, an employee may take both annual leave and a lump-sum payment for unused leave, but in no event shall such this combination may not exceed forty-five days in a calendar year except as provided for in Section 8-11-610. If an employee dies, his the employee's legal representative shall be is entitled to a lump-sum payment for his the employee's unused leave, not to exceed forty-five working days, except as provided for in Section 8-11-610.

(2)   Upon retirement from state employment, or upon the death of an employee if the member does not elect to participate in the

(3)   Upon retirement from state employment, if the employee participates in the Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive Program, the employee shall not receive payment for unused annual leave until the employee terminates from state employment and ends participation in the Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive Program. Upon termination of state employment and participation in the Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive Program, a lump-sum must be paid for unused leave, not to exceed forty-five days, unless a higher maximum is approved pursuant to Section 8-11-610, and without regard to the earned leave taken during the calendar year in which the employee retires."
SECTION   4.   A.   Items (14), (15), and (16) of Section 8-17-370 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 356 of 2002, are further amended to read:

"(14)   employees of the Medical University Hospital Authority, provided the Medical University Hospital Authority has promulgated an employee grievance plan in accordance with its enabling provision; and

(15)   presidents of the South Carolina Technical College System.;

(16)   a retired member of the South Carolina Police Officers Retirement System or a retired member of the South Carolina Retirement System who is hired by an agency to fill all or some fraction of a full-time equivalent (FTE) position covered by the State Employee Grievance Procedure Act; and"
B.   Section 8-17-370 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 356 of 2002, is further amended by adding a new item at the end to read:

"(17)   notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9-1-2210(E), any participant in the Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive Program."
SECTION   5.   The third undesignated paragraph of Section 9-1-1020 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 475 of 1988, is further amended to read:

"The rates of the deductions must be, without regard to a member's coverage under the Social Security Act, as follows: in the case of Class One members, five percent of earnable compensation

Class One       Class Two
Before July 1, 2005       5             6
July 1, 2005 through
June 30, 2006             5.25           6.25
After June 30, 2006       5.50           6.50"
SECTION   6.   A.   Article 9, Chapter 1, Title 9 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 9-1-1175.   Effective July 1, 2006, the board shall increase the employer contribution rate for the system by one-half percent of the earnable compensation of all members employed by an employer participating in the system. The board shall further increase the employer contribution rate by one-half percent effective July 1, 2007. The employer rate provided in this section also applies to payments for unused annual leave under the circumstances provided in Section 9-1-1020. The employer rate provided in this section includes the system's normal contribution rate and accrued liability contribution rate, but does not include contributions for group life insurance or other benefits that are remitted to the retirement systems. Contributions for group life insurance or other benefits are in addition to the applicable employer contribution rate. After June 30, 2007, the board, in its discretion, may increase or decrease the employer contribution rate set by this section based on the actuarial valuation provided to the board by the system's actuaries and considering the normal contribution rate determined pursuant to Section 9-1-1060 and the accrued liability contribution rate determined pursuant to Section 9-1-1070."
B.   Section 9-20-50 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 54 of 2001, is further amended to read:

"Section 9-20-50.   Each participant shall contribute monthly to the program the same amount he would be required to contribute to the South Carolina Retirement System if the participant were a member of that system. Participant contributions must be made by employer pick up in accordance with Section 9-1-1160(B) and any applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Each employer shall contribute on behalf of each participant five percent of compensation. Deductions must not be made from this five percent contribution. Each employer shall remit to the designated companies, for application to

(1)   participant education regarding the merits and risks associated with selection of defined contribution plans versus defined benefit plans;

(2) on-going investment education, where appropriate;

(3) recordkeeping; and

(4) monitoring contract compliance."
C.   Sections 9-1-1200 and 9-1-1220 of the 1976 Code are repealed.
SECTION   7.   Section 9-1-1770 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 1 of 2001, is further amended to read:

"Section 9-1-1770.   (A)   Effective July 1, 1968, There shall be is created the Preretirement Death Benefit Program, which shall be effective as of that date to for all employers under the system except counties, municipalities, and other political subdivisions, as well as those and those state departments, agencies, or other institutions which pay directly to the system the total employer contributions for the participating members in their employ.

(B)   The program shall be is available to those employers exempted in the preceding paragraph subsection (A) by written application of such the employer. An application shall be is an irrevocable commitment to participate under the program. For applications received by the System prior to October 1, 1968, the effective date of the coverage shall be July 1, 1968. For all other applications the Applications are effective date shall be July first next following the date of receipt by the system of the application.

(C)(1)   Upon receipt of proof, satisfactory to the board, of the death of: (a) a contributing member in service who had completed at least one full year of membership in the system or of the death of a

(2)   For purposes of this section subsection, a member described in item (1)(a) is considered to be in service at the date of his death if the last day the member was employed in a continuous, regular pay status, while earning regular or unreduced wages and regular or unreduced retirement service credit, whether the member was physically working on that day or taking continuous accrued annual leave or sick leave while receiving a full salary, occurred not more than ninety days before the date of his death and he has not retired.

(3)   For purposes of this subsection, a member described in (1)(b) is considered a retired contributing member if the last day the member was employed in a continuous, regular pay status, while earning regular or unreduced wages and paying retirement system contributions whether the member was physically working on that day or taking continuous accrued annual leave or sick leave while receiving a full salary, occurred not more than ninety days before the date of his death.

(D)   The board is authorized to may take such the action as may be necessary to provide the death benefit under this section in the form of group life insurance upon a determination that to do so would guarantee a more favorable tax treatment of the benefit to beneficiaries to whom such the benefit is payable.

(E)   Upon the death of a retired member who is not a retired contributing member after December 31, 2000, there must be paid to the designated beneficiary or beneficiaries, if living at the time of the retired member's death, otherwise to the retired member's estate, a life insurance benefit of one two thousand dollars if the retired member had ten years of creditable service but less than twenty years, two four thousand dollars if the retired member had twenty years of creditable

Upon the death of a retired member after June 30, 2000, the life insurance benefit otherwise due the member's beneficiary, beneficiaries, or estate under the above paragraph is increased as follows: one thousand dollars is increased to two thousand dollars, two thousand dollars is increased to four thousand dollars, and three thousand dollars is increased to six thousand dollars."
SECTION   8.   Section 9-1-1790 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 25 of 2001, is further amended to read:

"Section 9-1-1790.   (A)   A retired member of the system who has been retired for at least sixty fifteen consecutive calendar days may be hired and return to employment covered by the this system or any other system provided in this title and earn up to fifty thousand dollars a fiscal year without affecting the monthly retirement allowance he is receiving from the system. If the retired member continues in service after having earned fifty thousand dollars in a fiscal year, his retirement allowance must be discontinued during his period of service in the remainder of the fiscal year. If the employment continues for at least forty-eight consecutive months, the provisions of Section 9-1-1590 apply. If a retired member of the system returns to employment covered by the this system or any other system provided in this title sooner than sixty fifteen days after retirement, the member's retirement allowance is suspended while the member remains employed by the participating employer. If an employer fails to notify the system of the engagement of a retired member to perform services, the employer shall reimburse the system for all benefits wrongly paid to the retired member.

(B)   An employer shall pay to the system the employer contribution for active members prescribed by law with respect to any retired member engaged to perform services for the employer, regardless of whether the retired member is a full-time or part-time employee or a temporary or permanent employee. If an employer who is obligated to the system pursuant to this subsection fails to pay the amount due, as determined by the system, the amount must be deducted from any funds payable to the employer by the State.

(C)   A retired member shall pay to the system the employee contribution as if the member were an active contributing member if an

"Section 9-1-1810.   (A)   As of the end of each calendar year, the increase in the ratio of the Consumer Price Index to the index as of the prior December thirty-first must be determined,. and

(B)(1)   If the increase equals or exceeds four Consumer Price Index as determined pursuant to subsection (A) of this section increases by no more than one percent, the retirement allowance, inclusive of the supplemental allowances payable under the provisions of Sections 9-1-1910, 9-1-1920, and 9-1-1930, of each beneficiary in receipt of an allowance must be increased by four percent. If the increase in the index is less than four percent, the retirement allowance, inclusive of supplemental allowances, all as determined above, must be increased by a percentage equal to the increase in the index.

(2)   If the Consumer Price Index as determined pursuant to subsection (A) of this section increases by more than one percent, then:

(a)   the retirement allowance of each beneficiary in receipt of an allowance, inclusive of the supplement allowances payable under the provisions of Sections 9-1-1910, 9-1-1920, and 9-1-1930, must be increased by one percent; and

(b)   the retirement allowance may be further increased beyond one percent up to the lesser of the total percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index or four percent, to the extent that the additional liabilities because of the increase in allowances would not extend the amortization period to liquidate the unfunded actuarial accrued liability of the South Carolina Retirement System beyond thirty years.

(C)   The increase in retirement allowances commences the July first immediately following the December thirty-first that the increase in ratio was determined, and all increases in retirement allowances must be granted to these beneficiaries in receipt of a retirement allowance on July first immediately preceding the effective date of the increase. Any increase in allowances is effective only if the additional liabilities because of the increase in allowances do not require an increase in the total employer rate of contribution. Any increase in allowance granted pursuant to this section must be included in the

(D)   The allowance of a surviving annuitant of a beneficiary whose allowance is increased under this section must, when and if payable, be increased by the same percent.

(E)   For purposes of this section, 'Consumer Price Index' means the Consumer Price Index for Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics."
SECTION   10.   Section 9-1-2210 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 1 of 2001, is further amended to read:

"Section 9-1-2210.   (A)   An active contributing member who is eligible for service retirement under this chapter and complies with the requirements of this article may elect to participate in the Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive Program (program). A member electing to participate in the program retires for purposes of the system, and the member's normal retirement benefit is calculated on the basis of the member's average final compensation and service credit at the time the program period begins. The program participant shall agree to continue employment with an employer participating in the system for a program period, not to exceed five years. The member shall notify the system before the beginning of the program period. Participation in the program does not guarantee employment for the specified program period.

(B)   After June 30, 2005, and notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9-1-10(4), a payment for unused annual leave is not included in calculating a member's deferred program benefit during the program period. The member's average final compensation for the purpose of calculating the deferred program retirement benefit must be solely the average of the member's highest twelve consecutive quarters of earnable compensation at the time the member enters the program. During the specified program period, receipt of the member's normal retirement benefit is deferred. The member's deferred monthly benefit must be placed in the system's trust fund on behalf of the member. No interest is paid on the member's deferred monthly benefit placed in the system's trust fund during the specified program period.

(C)   During the specified program period, the employer shall pay to the system the employer contribution for active members prescribed by law with respect to any program participant it employs, regardless of whether the program participant is a full-time or part-time employee, or a temporary or permanent employee. The program participant shall

(D)   A program participant is retired from the retirement system as of the beginning of the program period. A program participant makes no further employee contributions to the system, accrues no service credit during the program period, and is not eligible to receive group life insurance benefits or disability retirement benefits. Accrued annual leave and sick leave used in any manner in the calculation of the program participant's retirement benefit is deducted from the amount of such leave accrued by the participant.

(E)   A program participant is retired for retirement benefit purposes only. For employment purposes, a program participant is considered to be an active employee, retaining all other rights and benefits of an active employee except for grievance rights pursuant to Section 8-17-370, and is not subject to the earnings limitation of Section 9-1-1790 during the program period.

(F)   Upon termination of employment either during or at the end of the program period, the member must receive the balance in the member's program account by electing one of the following distribution alternatives:

(1)   a lump-sum distribution, paying appropriate taxes; or

(2)   to the extent permitted under law, a tax sheltered rollover into an eligible plan.

For members who began participation in the program before July 1, 2005, the member also must receive the previously determined normal retirement benefits based upon the member's average final compensation and service credit at the time the program period began, plus any applicable cost of living increases declared during the program period. The program participant is thereafter subject to the earnings limitation of Section 9-1-1790.

Upon termination of employment of members who began participation in the program after June 30, 2005, the retirement systems shall recalculate the average final compensation of the member to determine the benefit the member receives after participation in the program. the average final compensation calculated at the commencement of the program must be increased by an amount up to

(G)   If a program participant dies during the specified program period, the member's designated beneficiary must receive the balance in the member's program account by electing one of the following distribution alternatives:

(1)   a lump-sum distribution, paying appropriate taxes; or

(2)   to the extent permitted under law, a tax sheltered rollover into an eligible plan.

In accordance with the form of system benefit selected by the member at the time the program commenced, the member's designated beneficiary must receive either a survivor benefit or a refund of contributions from the member's system account.

If a program participant who began participation in the program before July 1, 2005, elected either Option B or Option C under Section 9-1-1620, the average final compensation calculated when the member commenced the program must be used in determining the survivor benefit.

If a program participant who began participation in the program after June 30, 2005, elected either Option B or C under Section 9-1-1620, then the designated survivor beneficiary shall receive a survivor benefit based on a recalculated average final compensation. The average final compensation calculated at the commencement of the program must be increased by an amount up to and including forty-five days termination pay for unused annual leave received by the member's legal representative at the member's death, divided by three. The survivor benefit must be calculated in accordance with Section 9-1-1550, utilizing the recalculated average final compensation determined in this subsection, and the member's service credit, including sick leave, as of the date the member began participation in the program, plus any cost-of-living increases declared during the program period with respect to the amount of the member's deferred program benefit.

(H)   If a program participant fails to terminate employment with an employer participating in the retirement system within one month after the end of the specified program period, the member must receive the previously determined normal retirement benefits based upon the member's average final compensation and service credit at the time the program began, plus any applicable cost of living increases declared during the program period. The program participant is thereafter subject to the earnings limitation of Section 9-1-1790. The program participant also must receive the balance in the member's program account by selecting one of the following alternatives:

(1)   a lump-sum distribution, paying appropriate taxes; or

(2)   to the extent permitted under law, a tax sheltered rollover into an eligible plan.
A program participant shall terminate employment no later than the day before the fifth annual anniversary of the date the member commenced participation in the program.

(I)   A member is not eligible to participate in the program if the member has participated previously in and received a benefit under this program or any other state retirement system. "
SECTION   11.   Section 9-16-90 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 371 of 1998, is amended by adding a new subsection at the end to read:

"(C)   the panel and the Office of the State Treasurer jointly and not less than quarterly shall report to the board on the status of the investments of the retirement system."
SECTION   12.   A.   Section 9-16-320(A) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 371 of 1998, is amended to read:

"(A)   The panel shall develop an annual investment plan for the retirement systems for the next fiscal year. The panel shall submit a draft of the annual investment plan to the State Treasurer for review and comment no later than April thirtieth of each year. The comments of the State Treasurer must be delivered directly to the other board members on or before the date the approval of the annual investment plan is on the board's agenda. The panel shall meet no later than May first fifteenth of each year to adopt the proposed annual investment plan for the retirement systems for the next fiscal year. The annual investment plan must be developed by the panel. No later than June first of each year, the panel shall submit the proposed plan to the board. Amendments may be made to the plan by the panel during the fiscal year with the approval of the board."
B.   Section 9-16-340(C)(1) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 371 of 1998, is amended to read:

"(1)   the target allocation of system assets between equity investments and fixed-income investments. The target allocation to either equity or fixed-income investments may not exceed sixty percent of system assets. Appreciation of either the equity or fixed-income assets above sixty percent of system assets does not require an immediate reduction in allocation; however, the actual allocation to either equity or fixed income may not exceed the target allocation by more than five percent at the start of any fiscal year; the minimum and maximum portions of system assets that may be allocated to equity investments on an ongoing basis not to exceed forty percent and the minimum and maximum portions of system assets not to exceed ten percent that may be allocated to additional equity investment during the plan fiscal year. When investments in equities attain the maximum allocation allowed by this item, up to forty percent of current member and employer contributions to the retirement system may be invested in equities. If, due to growth in value of equity investments, equity investments exceed forty percent of the total assets of the retirement system, this subsection does not require the sale of equities to reduce the percentage of equities to forty percent;"
C.   Notwithstanding the general effective date of this act, this section takes effect upon approval of this act by the Governor. Following the effective date of this section, the State Retirement Systems Investment Panel shall develop an amendment to the annual investment plan for submission to the State Budget and Control Board for implementing the revised limits provided pursuant to this section.
SECTION   13.   Article 3, Chapter 16, Title 9 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 9-16-315.   The Retirement and Pre-Retirement Advisory Board shall elect from its membership a retired member of the South Carolina Retirement System to serve as an advisor to the State Retirement Systems Investment Panel. In addition, the State Budget and Control Board shall select an active member of the South Carolina Retirement System to serve as an advisor to the panel. Before making its selection, the board shall solicit input from those organizations representing public employees as the board considers appropriate. These advisors may participate in all panel discussions and deliberations and have access to any information available to the panel; however, these advisors are not authorized to vote or otherwise make any decisions on behalf of the panel."
SECTION   14.   Article 3, Chapter 16, Title 9 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 9-16-345.   In hiring and procurement in the implementation and administration of this chapter, and consistent with its duties as trustee and fiduciary under this title, the board shall strive to assure that minorities and minority-owned businesses are represented."
SECTION   15.   A.   Section 9-1-10(17) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 387 of 2000, is further amended to read:

"(17)   [Reserved]   'Medical board' means the board of physicians provided for in Section 9-1-220."
b.   Section 9-9-10 of the 1976 Code is amended by deleting item (16) which reads:

"(16)   'Medical board' shall mean the board of physicians provided for in Section 9-9-35. "
C.   Section 9-11-10(18) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 387 of 2000, is further amended to read:

"(18)   [Reserved]   'Medical board' means the board provided for in Section 9-11-30(2)."
D.   Section 9-11-30(2) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(2)   [Reserved]   The Board shall designate a medical board to be composed of three physicians who are not members of the System. If required, other physicians who are not members of the System may be employed to report on special cases. The medical board shall arrange for and pass upon all medical examinations required under the System, shall investigate all essential statements and certificates by or on behalf of a member in connection with an application for disability retirement, and shall report in writing to the Board its conclusions and recommendations upon all matters referred to it."
E.   Sections 9-1-220 and 9-9-35 of the 1976 Code are repealed.
F.   In Title 9 of the 1976 Code, wherever the phrase 'medical board' or any variant of 'medical board' appears, it must be construed to mean the 'system' unless the context clearly requires otherwise. The Code Commissioner shall replace the reference in future code supplements and replacement volumes as the Code Commissioner determines appropriate.
SECTION   16.   This act takes effect July 1, 2005.   /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. MCLEOD explained the amendment.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. W. D. SMITH a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

Rep. MCLEOD continued speaking.

Rep. KIRSH moved to table the amendment.

Rep. E. H. PITTS demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Anthony                Bales                  Barfield
Battle                 Brady                  Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clyburn
Coates                 Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Emory                  Hagood
Hamilton               Hardwick               Harrell

Harrison               Hayes                  J. Hines
Hiott                  Jennings               Kirsh
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Loftis
Lucas                  Mahaffey               McCraw
McGee                  Merrill                Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Norman
Owens                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 M. A. Pitts            Rhoad
Rice                   Sandifer               Scarborough
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            Stewart
Taylor                 Thompson               Townsend
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 White                  Wilkins
Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allen                  Anderson               Bingham
Bowers                 Breeland               G. Brown
J. Brown               R. Brown               Clark
Clemmons               Coleman                Edge
Frye                   Funderburk             Haley
Howard                 Huggins                Leach
Mack                   McLeod                 Ott
E. H. Pitts            J. E. Smith            Talley
Toole                  Vick                   Weeks

So, the amendment was tabled.

Rep. KIRSH proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20530HTC05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 8-11-40(D), as contained in Section 1, page 618-1, and inserting:
/   (D)   A retired member of the South Carolina Retirement System who is hired after June 30, 2005, by an agency to fill all or some fraction of a full-time equivalent (FTE) position is only allowed a

Rep. KIRSH explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. KIRSH explained the Bill.

Pursuant to Rule 7.7 the Yeas and Nays were taken resulting as follows:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bailey                 Bales
Ballentine             Barfield               Battle
Bingham                Bowers                 Brady
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Chalk
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Coates                 Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Frye                   Funderburk             Govan
Hagood                 Haley                  Hamilton
Hardwick               Harrell                Harrison
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               Hinson                 Hiott
Hosey                  Huggins                Jefferson
Jennings               Kennedy                Kirsh
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Loftis                 Lucas                  Mahaffey
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Norman
Ott                    Owens                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rhoad                  Rice
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon

J. Brown               Howard                 Mack
J. H. Neal             Parks                  J. E. Smith
Vick

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

Rep. NORMAN moved that the House recur to the Morning Hour, which was agreed to.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., May 18, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

The Senate respectfully invites your Honorable Body to attend in the Senate Chamber at 3:40 p.m. today for the purpose of Ratifying Acts.

Very respectfully,
President

On motion of Rep. TOWNSEND the invitation was accepted.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., May 18, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Free Conference on S. 212:

S. 212 (Word version) -- Senators McGill, Grooms, Ford, McConnell, Land, Leatherman, Moore, Reese, Drummond, Elliott, Peeler, O'Dell, Fair, Malloy, Leventis, Verdin, Jackson, Short, Patterson, Richardson, Gregory, Courson, Hayes, Ryberg, Anderson, Setzler, Alexander, Sheheen, Hawkins, J. V. Smith, Cromer, Martin, Mescher, Knotts, Hutto, Thomas, Matthews, Rankin and Campsen: A BILL TO AMEND

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

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

S. 588 (Word version) -- Senators Martin, Thomas, Bryant, McConnell, Alexander, Hayes and Malloy: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 35, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT, SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT OF 2005, PROVIDING FOR AN ENHANCED ROLE OF THE STATE IN SECURITIES REGULATION AND INVESTOR PROTECTION INCLUDING REGISTRATION OF INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS BY ISSUERS AND CONTROL PERSONS; REGISTRATION OF BROKER-DEALERS AND THEIR AGENTS AND INVESTMENT ADVISORS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES; EXPANDED INVESTIGATORY AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS THROUGH SUBPOENA POWER, CRIMINAL PENALTIES SET BY THE STATE, AND STATE CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE

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

S. 16 (Word version) -- Senators Moore, McConnell, Elliott, Hayes, Verdin, Alexander, Fair and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-1-60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIMES, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING METHAMPHETAMINE AS A VIOLENT CRIME; TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-110, RELATING TO THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, SO AS TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "PARAPHERNALIA", ADD THE DEFINITIONS OF "COCAINE BASE" AND "METHAMPHETAMINE", AND DELETE THE DEFINITION OF "CRACK COCAINE, ICE, OR CRANK"; TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-365, RELATING TO THEFT OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, SO AS TO INCLUDE THEFT OF PRECURSOR SUBSTANCES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-375, RELATING TO THE MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINE, SO AS TO MAKE POSSESSION OF EQUIPMENT USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO MANUFACTURE, AND TO INCLUDE A PUNISHMENT SCHEDULE FOR POSSESSION OF EPHEDRINE, PSEUDOEPHEDRINE, AND PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

S. 227 (Word version) -- Senators Fair, Campsen and Leventis: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1695, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PERSONS FROM WHOM CONSENT OR RELINQUISHMENT FOR ADOPTION IS REQUIRED, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CONSENT OR RELINQUISHMENT IS NOT REQUIRED IF THE CHILD WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ADOPTION PROCEEDING WAS CONCEIVED AS A RESULT OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT OR INCEST; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1572, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS A GROUND FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS IF THE CHILD WAS CONCEIVED AS A RESULT OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT OR INCEST.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

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

S. 307 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler, Verdin, Cromer, Ryberg, Knotts, Alexander and Thomas: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-1885 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN IT IS LAWFUL TO DRIVE A VEHICLE IN THE LEFT LANE OF AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY, AND TO PROVIDE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A TRAFFIC TICKET MAY BE ISSUED FOR THE VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISION.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

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

H. 3915 (Word version) -- Reps. Pinson, Parks, Anthony and M. A. Pitts: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-11-325 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WHICH ONLY PROVIDES SEWAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES TO UTILIZE ANY METHOD OF FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION

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

S. 47 (Word version) -- Senators Cromer, Elliott, Fair, Ford and Ritchie: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-652, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FIRST DEGREE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FIRST DEGREE CARRIES A MINIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF TEN YEARS, NO PART OF WHICH MAY BE SUSPENDED OR PROBATION GRANTED; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-653, RELATING TO CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE SECOND DEGREE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE SECOND DEGREE CARRIES A MINIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF FIVE YEARS, NO PART OF WHICH MAY BE SUSPENDED OR PROBATION GRANTED; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-655, RELATING TO CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN ACTOR WHO HAS AT LEAST ONE PRIOR CONVICTION FOR A CRIME FOR WHICH THE ACTOR MUST REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 23-3-430 AND WHO ENGAGES IN SEXUAL BATTERY WITH A VICTIM WHO IS LESS THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

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

H. 3162 (Word version) -- Reps. Duncan, M. A. Pitts, E. H. Pitts, Taylor, Anthony, W. D. Smith, J. M. Neal, Pinson, Hayes, Jennings, McGee, G. R. Smith, Wilkins, Vaughn, Young, Kirsh, Bailey, Battle, Witherspoon, Ballentine, Hinson, Mahaffey and Toole: A BILL TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA SPORTS OFFICIALS AND COACHES PROTECTION ACT" BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-611 TO THE 1976 CODE SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO

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

S. 95 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Sheheen, Knotts and Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-17-445, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REGULATION OF UNSOLICITED CONSUMER TELEPHONE CALLS AND SECTION 34-36-40, RELATING TO LOAN BROKERS, BOTH SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS TO REQUEST A HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY REQUEST THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION IMPOSE A CIVIL FINE FOR A VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 37-6-106, RELATING TO THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, RATHER THAN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBPOENA; TO AMEND SECTIONS 37-6-108 AND 37-6-113, RELATING TO AN ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR TO REQUEST A HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT AND TO PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT'S ORDER AS PROVIDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT AND THE RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 37-6-401, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF PART 4, CHAPTER 6, TITLE 37 AND THE

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

H. 3362 (Word version) -- Reps. W. D. Smith and Altman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-810, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DISQUALIFICATIONS OF JURORS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE DISQUALIFICATION FOR A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR TO A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT OF THIRTY DAYS OR MORE AND TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL DISQUALIFICATION FOR A PERSON WHO HAS CRIMINAL CHARGES PENDING.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

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

H. 3900 (Word version) -- Reps. M. A. Pitts and Scarborough: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8 TO CHAPTER 31, TITLE 23, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT MUST ISSUE A PICTURE IDENTIFICATION TO CERTAIN RETIREES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PROVIDE THAT THE AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT MUST ALLOW

Rep. HOWARD, from the Richland Delegation, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 808 (Word version) -- Senators Patterson, Courson, Lourie and Jackson: A BILL TO DEVOLVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT THE MEMBERS OF THE RICHLAND COUNTY RECREATION COMMISSION FROM THE RICHLAND COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. J. BROWN, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report with amendments on:

S. 268 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler and Cleary: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 37, TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF OPTOMETRISTS, SO AS TO CONFORM THIS CHAPTER TO THE STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK ESTABLISHED FOR PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL BOARDS IN CHAPTER 1, TITLE 40, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION; AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF OPTOMETRISTS, AND AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO PROVIDE THAT A BACHELOR OF ARTS OR BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IS REQUIRED FOR LICENSURE, TO ESTABLISH LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT, TO PROVIDE THAT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, ALL LICENSED OPTOMETRISTS MUST BE LICENSED AS THERAPEUTICALLY-

Rep. J. BROWN, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 144 (Word version) -- Senators Mescher, Short and Rankin: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 59-63-80 AND 59-63-90 TO REQUIRE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO ADOPT A POLICY AUTHORIZING A STUDENT TO SELF ADMINISTER ASTHMA MEDICATION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELEMENTS OF THE POLICY INCLUDING REQUIRING THE PARENT OF THE STUDENT TO PROVIDE CERTAIN MEDICAL INFORMATION, AND TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-60 BY PROVIDING IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR DISTRICTS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. J. BROWN, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report on:

H. 3968 (Word version) -- Reps. Govan, Clyburn, Rutherford, Hosey, Moody-Lawrence, Lee, Clark, Allen, Breeland, J. Brown, R. Brown, Davenport, Jefferson, Littlejohn, Mack, J. H. Neal and Rice: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-1-285 SO AS TO ENACT THE HEALTHY SOUTH CAROLINIANS 2010 ACT AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SHALL DEVELOP AND PROMOTE HEALTHY SOUTH CAROLINIANS 2010 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, USING THE FEDERAL HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010 AS A MODEL; TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHALL REPORT ANNUALLY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE STATUS OF DISPARITIES IN HEALTH AMONG MINORITIES AND NONMINORITIES; TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHALL WORK WITH MINORITY PHYSICIAN NETWORKS TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS TO EDUCATE HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF CULTURE IN HEALTH STATUS; TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHALL WORK WITH HEALTH

Rep. J. BROWN, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report with amendments on:

S. 321 (Word version) -- Senators Moore and Martin: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 11, TITLE 25, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 25-11-90 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A WAR ROSTER PREPARED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE DIVISION OF VETERANS AFFAIRS IN THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR TO INCLUDE THE NAME AND PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF RECORD OF PERSONS WHO SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY DURING CERTAIN CONFLICTS AND AN ORDER OF BATTLE TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF MILITARY UNITS BASED IN SOUTH CAROLINA PARTICIPATING IN CERTAIN CONFLICTS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 73, PART II OF ACT 164 OF 1993 RELATING TO PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF OTHER MILITARY ROSTERS.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. J. BROWN, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report with amendments on:

H. 3591 (Word version) -- Reps. Brady, J. E. Smith, Harrison, Pinson, Agnew, Anthony, Ceips, Chalk, Cobb-Hunter, Frye, Haskins, Hayes, Hinson, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Lucas, McGee, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Taylor, Umphlett, Whitmire, Witherspoon, Young, Ballentine,

Rep. TOWNSEND, from the Committee on Education and Public Works, submitted a favorable report on:

H. 4085 (Word version) -- Rep. Townsend: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO CREATE A JOINT STUDY COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. TOWNSEND, from the Committee on Education and Public Works, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 237 (Word version) -- Senator Ryberg: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 56-1-465 AND 56-1-810, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROVIDING A PERSON WITH A NOTICE SUSPENDING HIS DRIVER'S LICENSE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, SO AS TO REVISE THE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. CHELLIS, from the Dorchester Delegation, submitted a favorable report with amendments on:

H. 3569 (Word version) -- Rep. Bailey: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 536 OF 1986, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR SUMMERVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 IN DORCHESTER COUNTY, SO AS TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARY THAT SEPARATES SUMMERVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 IN DORCHESTER COUNTY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4 IN DORCHESTER COUNTY; AND TO DESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH THESE LINES OF THE ELECTION DISTRICTS FOR TRUSTEES ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD.

On motion of Rep. CHELLIS, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 3569 (Word version) -- Rep. Bailey: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 536 OF 1986, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR SUMMERVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 IN DORCHESTER COUNTY, SO AS TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARY THAT SEPARATES SUMMERVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 IN DORCHESTER COUNTY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4 IN DORCHESTER COUNTY; AND TO DESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH THESE LINES OF THE ELECTION DISTRICTS FOR TRUSTEES ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD.

Reps. BAILEY, YOUNG, CHELLIS and HARRELL proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\ 20558SD05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION   1.   The school districts of Dorchester County are consolidated.

The amendment was then adopted.

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

On motion of Rep. PERRY, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4122 (Word version) -- Rep. Perry: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE SOUTH AIKEN HIGH SCHOOL BOYS SOCCER TEAM, COACHES, AND OTHER SCHOOL OFFICIALS AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPEAKER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONGRATULATING AND HONORING THE TEAM ON WINNING THE 2005 STATE CLASS AAAA CHAMPIONSHIP.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the privilege of the floor of the South Carolina House of Representatives be extended to the South Aiken High School Boys Soccer Team, coaches, and other school officials at a date and time to be determined by the Speaker for the purpose of congratulating and honoring the team on winning the 2005 State Class AAAA Championship.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 4123 (Word version) -- Reps. G. M. Smith, Coates, Weeks, J. H. Neal, G. Brown and Harvin: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE PROFOUND SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE DEATH OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL TROOPER

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 4124 (Word version) -- Rep. J. E. Smith: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND CONGRATULATE MRS. CYNTHIA DETUELO, PRINCIPAL OF A. C. MOORE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UPON HER RETIREMENT AND FOR HER OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXEMPLARY SERVICE TO EDUCATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO EXTEND THE VERY BEST WISHES TO HER IN ALL HER FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Resolution was adopted.

On motion of Rep. WITHERSPOON, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4125 (Word version) -- Reps. Witherspoon, Barfield, Viers, Hardwick, Clark, Frye, Haley, E. H. Pitts, Sandifer, Brady, J. M. Neal, Emory, Clemmons, Edge and Harrison: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION TO USE THE CHAMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005, FOR THE CLOSING SESSION OF THE 2005 ANNUAL SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU YOUTH LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation is authorized to use the Chambers of the House of Representatives on Thursday, July 14, 2005, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon for the closing session of the 2005 annual South Carolina Farm Bureau Youth Leadership Conference. If the House of Representatives is in statewide session on this date or its Chamber is otherwise unavailable, that Chamber may not be used.

Be it further resolved that no charges may be made for the use of the House Chamber by South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation on this date.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 4126 (Word version) -- Rep. Bingham: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE JOE JONES III, OWNER OF JONES, MCADEN & ASSOCIATES, OF COLUMBIA UPON BEING CHOSEN THE 2005 ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE OF THE YEAR BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SOCIETY OF ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVES.

The Resolution was adopted.

On motion of Rep. GOVAN, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4127 (Word version) -- Reps. Govan, Ott, Cobb-Hunter, Rhoad, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the members of the House of Representatives, by this resolution, extend the privilege of the floor to the players, coaches, and school officials of the Claflin University Athletic Program of Orangeburg County on a date and time to be determined by the Speaker, to recognize the Claflin University Athletic Program as an athletic powerhouse in the Eastern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and to congratulate it on being named the Eastern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference's Best Overall Program.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 4128 (Word version) -- Reps. Cato, Chellis, Clemmons, Cobb-Hunter, Cooper, Hinson, Kirsh, Norman, Sandifer, Witherspoon, Scott, Duncan, Edge, Harrison, Jennings, Leach, Mack, Ott, Perry, Rice, Scarborough, Talley, Townsend, Tripp, Viers and White: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO URGE THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR A DOMESTIC ENERGY POLICY THAT WILL ENSURE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS WHILE PROMOTING ECONOMIC AND NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FUTURE GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS.
The Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

The following was introduced:

H. 4129 (Word version) -- Reps. Perry, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE SOUTH AIKEN HIGH SCHOOL BOYS SOCCER TEAM ON ITS IMPRESSIVE CLASS AAAA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE, AND TO HONOR THE PLAYERS AND THEIR COACH, PAUL WATERS, ON A TRULY EXCEPTIONAL SEASON.

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

The following was introduced:

H. 4130 (Word version) -- Reps. Govan, Ott, Cobb-Hunter, Rhoad, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse,

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

The following was introduced:

H. 4131 (Word version) -- Reps. Rutherford, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, Rivers, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE PROFOUND SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF

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

The following was introduced:

H. 4132 (Word version) -- Rep. Townsend: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND ONE OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S MOST OUTSTANDING EDUCATORS, DR. LEE C. RAWL, PRINCIPAL OF HONEA PATH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FOR HIS EXEMPLARY CAREER AS A TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT AS PRINCIPAL OF HONEA PATH ELEMENTARY.

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

The following was introduced:

H. 4133 (Word version) -- Reps. J. Brown, Scott, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers,

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

On motion of Rep. PINSON, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4134 (Word version) -- Rep. Pinson: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR TO THE CAMBRIDGE ACADEMY TENNIS TEAM, COACH LYNN ISENHOWER, AND CAMBRIDGE ACADEMY OFFICIALS, AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPEAKER, TO CONGRATULATE THEM ON THEIR IMPRESSIVE 2005 SOUTH CAROLINA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ASSOCIATION CLASS A BOYS STATE TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the members of the House of Representatives extend the privilege of the floor to the Cambridge Academy Tennis Team, Coach Lynn Isenhower, and Cambridge Academy officials, at a date and time to be determined by the Speaker, to congratulate them on their impressive 2005 South Carolina Independent School Association Class A Boys State Tennis Championship title.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 4135 (Word version) -- Rep. Pinson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE CAMBRIDGE ACADEMY TENNIS

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

The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committee:

H. 4136 (Word version) -- Reps. Clark, J. E. Smith, Bingham, Anderson, Toole, Clemmons, Barfield, Bowers, Frye, Hardwick, J. Hines, Hosey, Davenport, Rhoad, Battle, Branham, Breeland, J. Brown, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Dantzler, Emory, Hamilton, Leach, Littlejohn, Mahaffey, Miller, Norman, Rice and G. R. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-220, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXEMPT ONE UNREGISTERED PRIVATE-PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE OWNED OR LEASED BY A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DURATION OF ANY PERIOD THE SERVICE MEMBER SERVES IN A HAZARDOUS-DUTY ZONE.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means

H. 4137 (Word version) -- Reps. G. M. Smith and Merrill: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 57-11-35 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF STATE HIGHWAY FUNDS OR OTHER STATE FUNDS ON ANY ROADWAY OR BRIDGE CROSSING THE NORTH SANTEE SWAMP AS ANY PART OF A HIGHWAY PROJECT, COMMONLY CALLED THE "BRIGGS-DELAINE-PEARSON CONNECTOR".
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means

Rep. BREELAND moved that upon the completion of the Ratification of Acts, the House stand adjourned, which was agreed to.

At 3:40 p.m. the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Acts and Joint Resolutions were duly ratified:

(R75, S. 20 (Word version)) -- Senators McConnell, Ritchie, Short, Elliott and Ford: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-11-911 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO KNOWINGLY AND WILFULLY OPERATE AN AUDIOVISUAL RECORDING DEVICE IN A MOTION PICTURE THEATER WITH INTENT TO RECORD A MOTION PICTURE WITHOUT CONSENT FROM THE THEATER OWNER; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-11-920, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL RECORDING, SO AS TO ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE PENALTIES.

(R76, S. 22 (Word version)) -- Senators Knotts, McConnell, Leventis, Sheheen, Hayes, Alexander, Ford, McGill, Williams and Malloy: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-1610, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF ARTICLE 15, CHAPTER 7, TITLE 14, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THERE IS A NEED TO ENHANCE THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM TO IMPROVE THE ABILITY OF THE STATE TO DETECT AND INVESTIGATE WILFUL CRIMES WHICH RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, BECAUSE OF ITS UNIQUE QUALIFICATIONS, MUST PLAY A SUBSTANTIAL ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF ANY SUCH ALLEGED ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENSE, INCLUDING DETERMINING IF SUCH AN ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENSE HAS OCCURRED AND CERTIFYING THAT THE AMOUNT OF ANTICIPATED DAMAGES ARE TWO MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-1630, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE GRAND JURY, SO AS TO EXTEND THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE STATE GRAND JURY TO INCLUDE WILFUL CRIMES WHICH RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL MUST CERTIFY THAT THE AMOUNT OF ANTICIPATED DAMAGES ARE TWO MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE AND MUST MAKE A FORMAL WRITTEN

(R77, S. 49 (Word version)) -- Senators Hayes, Elliott, Hutto, Leventis, Rankin, Patterson, Land, Short, Richardson, Lourie, McConnell and Courson: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-290 SO AS TO REQUIRE HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR TREATMENT OF MENTAL ILLNESS, TO ALLOW A PLAN THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR MANAGEMENT OF CARE OR THE SAME DEGREE OF MANAGEMENT OF CARE FOR ALL HEALTH CONDITIONS, TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT THROUGH A MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATION, TO ESTABLISH TREATMENT CONDITIONS TO QUALIFY FOR COVERAGE, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE TO REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE IMPACT OF THIS ACT ON HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS, AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.

(R78, S. 212 (Word version)) -- Senators McGill, Grooms, Ford, McConnell, Land, Leatherman, Moore, Reese, Drummond, Elliott, Peeler, O'Dell, Fair, Malloy, Leventis, Verdin, Jackson, Short, Patterson, Richardson, Gregory, Courson, Hayes, Ryberg, Anderson, Setzler, Alexander, Sheheen, Hawkins, J. V. Smith, Cromer, Martin, Mescher, Knotts, Hutto, Thomas, Matthews, Rankin and Campsen: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-500, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO HUNTING WILD TURKEY, SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO TAKE OR ATTEMPT TO TAKE A WILD TURKEY FROM A WATERCRAFT ON THE WATERS OF THE STATE; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-544, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT TO POSSESS A SET OF WILD TURKEY TRANSPORTATION TAGS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL TURKEYS TAKEN MUST BE CHECKED AT AN OFFICIAL CHECK STATION ON THE DAY OF THE TAKE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-555, RELATING TO MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO HUNT WILD TURKEY ON SUNDAY ON PRIVATE LAND IN GAME ZONE 4,

(R79, S. 318 (Word version)) -- Senators McConnell and Ford: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 5, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MUNICIPAL INCORPORATION, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL INCORPORATION TO REVIEW THE FILING OF AN AREA SEEKING INCORPORATION AND TO RECOMMEND TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHETHER THE MINIMUM SERVICE STANDARDS FOR MUNICIPAL INCORPORATION ARE MET, TO DEFINE "PUBLICLY-OWNED PROPERTY" "CONTIGUOUS" FOR PURPOSES OF MUNICIPAL INCORPORATION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE, AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT A PROPOSED MUNICIPALITY SHALL MEET.

(R80, S. 422 (Word version)) -- Senators McConnell, Hayes and Campsen: AN ACT TO AMEND ARTICLE 7, TITLE 62 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TRUST ADMINISTRATION, SO AS TO ENACT THE UNIFORM TRUST CODE BY PROVIDING A COMPREHENSIVE CODIFICATION OR RECODIFICATION OF MUCH OF EXISTING TRUST LAW AND SUPPLEMENTING EXISTING COMMON LAW UNLESS THE CODE SPECIFICALLY CONTRADICTS IT, AND PROVIDING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, FOR GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS INCLUDING A DEFINITION FOR "QUALIFIED BENEFICIARY" AND AN APPLICATION OF THE STATE'S WILL CONSTRUCTION RULES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRUSTS WHEN APPROPRIATE; FOR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND REPRESENTATION BY OTHERS, ESSENTIALLY RECODIFYING EXISTING VENUE, JURISDICTION, AND REPRESENTATION PROVISIONS; FOR THE RULES FOR CREATION OF TRUSTS INCLUDING THAT A SELF-SETTLED TRUST MUST BE IN WRITING, THAT A TRUST PURPOSE BE LAWFUL AND ACHIEVABLE, THAT A VALID NONCHARITABLE TRUST MAY BE CREATED WITHOUT DEFINITE BENEFICIARIES IN ONLY CERTAIN INSTANCES, THAT AN EARLY TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION OF A NONAMENDABLE IRREVOCABLE TRUST REQUIRES COURT APPROVAL, THAT A COURT MAY

(R81, S. 467 (Word version)) -- Senators Hayes and Peeler: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT UPON EXECUTION OF AN APPROPRIATE CONTRACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH IS AUTHORIZED TO TRANSFER A CERTAIN SUM OF MONEY FROM AN ACCOUNT DESIGNATED FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A CHILD AND ADOLESCENT FACILITY AT THE CATAWBA COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER TO THE FRIENDS OF THE FAMILY CENTER, A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO PURCHASE A SUITABLE BUILDING TO SERVE AS A CHILD AND ADOLESCENT MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY TO BE NAMED THE CATAWBA FAMILY CENTER.

(R82, S. 573 (Word version)) -- Senators McConnell, Verdin, Rankin, Courson, Elliott and Ford: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1-3-240, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OFFICERS WHO MAY BE REMOVED BY THE GOVERNOR FOR CAUSE, SO AS TO DELETE THE COMMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, TO ADD THE DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY; TO ESTABLISH CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH DIRECTORS MAY BE REMOVED; TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-60, RELATING TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR CERTAIN LOSSES RESULTING FROM CONDUCT OF A DIRECTOR OF THE AUTHORITY; TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-70, RELATING TO THE LIABILITY OF A GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A DIRECTOR OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY IS NOT IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN CONDUCT AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE INSURANCE RESERVE FUND IS PROHIBITED FROM PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 58-3-530, RELATING TO THE DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE REGULATIONS OF PUBLIC UTILITIES REVIEW COMMITTEE, SO AS TO ADD THE DUTY TO SCREEN CANDIDATES FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY; TO AMEND SECTION 58-31-20, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY, SO AS TO SET FORTH QUALIFICATIONS AND

(R83, S. 580 (Word version)) -- Senators Knotts, Grooms, Bryant, Reese, Ford, Verdin, Elliott, Short, Mescher, Patterson, Matthews, Land, Thomas, Rankin and Ryberg: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-235, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE FOR THE BUILDING CODES COUNCIL, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT THE COMMITTEE SHALL ADVISE THE COUNCIL ON MATTERS OF ACCESSIBILITY TO BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND FACILITIES BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.

(R84, S. 596 (Word version)) -- Senator Sheheen: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 56-7-10, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE USE OF THE UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKET BY ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO AUTOMATE THE ISSUANCE OF A UNIFORM TICKET IF APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AND PROVIDE THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY UTILIZE COMPUTERS AND OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES TO ISSUE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CITATIONS AND STORE INFORMATION RESULTING FROM THE ISSUANCE OF A TRAFFIC CITATION IF THIS METHOD OF ISSUING A CITATION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; TO AMEND SECTION 56-7-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE NUMBER OF COPIES AND COLORS OF THE COPIES CONTAINED IN A TRAFFIC TICKET AND THE PURPOSE OF THE COPIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT EACH PRINTED COPY MUST BE LABELED WITH ITS PURPOSE, TO PROVIDE THAT A HANDWRITTEN TRAFFIC TICKET MUST CONSIST OF FOUR COPIES, TO REVISE THE PURPOSE OF EACH COPY OF A TRAFFIC TICKET, TO ELIMINATE THE PINK COPY OF THE TICKET, AND TO PROVIDE THE NUMBER OF COPIES AND PURPOSE OF EACH COPY OF A TICKET GENERATED BY ELECTRONIC MEANS; TO AMEND SECTION 56-7-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PRINTING, ORDERING, AND PURCHASING OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKETS, AND THE FILING OF THE VARIOUS COPIES OF THE TICKET WITH THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES, SO AS TO MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES AND TO PROVIDE THE PROCEDURE THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT ISSUES UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKETS IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT MUST DISTRIBUTE COPIES OF THE TICKET TO VARIOUS ENTITIES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-6310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PROVISIONS THAT REGULATE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE.

(R85, S. 660 (Word version)) -- Senator Rankin: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-3-240, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR ARCHITECTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT APPLICANTS MUST

(R86, S. 738 (Word version)) -- Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, STATE CROP PEST COMMISSION, RELATING TO DESIGNATION OF PLANT PEST, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 2939, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

(R87, S. 778 (Word version)) -- Senators Drummond and O'Dell: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-290, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN GREENWOOD COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE AND ADD CERTAIN VOTING PRECINCTS OF GREENWOOD COUNTY AND REDESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO CORRECT ARCHAIC LANGUAGE.

(R88, S. 814 (Word version)) -- Senators Land and Hutto: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3365, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TEN-YEAR CORPORATE INCOME TAX MORATORIUM ALLOWED FOR CREATING AND MAINTAINING AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED FULL-TIME NEW JOBS IN COUNTIES THAT MEET CERTAIN UNEMPLOYMENT OR PER CAPITA INCOME REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM TO A TAXPAYER OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE FOR THE MORATORIUM BUT FOR THE REQUIREMENT THAT AT LEAST NINETY PERCENT OF THE TAXPAYER'S TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THIS STATE MUST BE IN THE MORATORIUM COUNTY AND ALLOW THE MORATORIUM WHEN THAT TAXPAYER CREATES AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED NEW JOBS AND INVESTS AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS IN A MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN A SECOND COUNTY DESIGNATED AS DISTRESSED, LEAST

(R89, H. 3424 (Word version)) -- Rep. Harrison: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1220, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE COURT REQUIRING A PARENT TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR A CHILD, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN CHILD SUPPORT CASES ENFORCED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THE DIVISION MUST USE THE NATIONAL MEDICAL SUPPORT NOTICE PROMULGATED BY FEDERAL LAW.

(R90, H. 3454 (Word version)) -- Reps. Cotty and Harrison: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 29-3-330, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH

(R91, H. 3997 (Word version)) -- Reps. McLeod and Duncan: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-420, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN NEWBERRY COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE AND RENAME CERTAIN VOTING PRECINCTS OF NEWBERRY COUNTY AND REDESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD.

At 3:45 p.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. PERRY, adjourned in memory of Eugene F. McManus, M.D. of Aiken, to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

This web page was last updated on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 9:56 A.M.