Printed Page 1090, Mar. 1
| Printed Page 1112, Mar. 1
|
Printed Page 1090, Mar. 1
| Printed Page 1112, Mar. 1
| The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as
follows.
Allison Anderson Bailey Baxley Beatty Boan Breeland Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Cain Canty Carnell Cato Cave Chamblee Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Cotty Cromer Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Elliott Fair Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Govan Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Harwell Haskins Herdklotz Hines Hodges Howard Huff Hutson Inabinett Jaskwhich Jennings Keegan Kelley Kennedy Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Lloyd Marchbanks Martin Mason McAbee McCraw McElveen McMahand McTeer Meacham Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Phillips Rhoad Rice Richardson Riser Robinson Rogers Sandifer Scott Seithel Sharpe Sheheen Shissias
Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stoddard Stuart Thomas Townsend Tripp Trotter Tucker Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Whipper, L. Whipper, S. White Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Williams Witherspoon Wofford Worley Wright Young, A. Young, J.STATEMENT OF ATTENDANCE I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Wednesday, March 1. Harry R. Askins C. Alex Harvin, III Richard M. Quinn, Jr.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. ASKINS a temporary leave of absence to attend a parole hearing.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. McKAY a leave of absence due to an accident.
Rep. McTEER signed a statement with the Clerk that he came in after the roll call of the House and was present for the Session on Tuesday, February 28.
Announcement was made that Dr. Tom Whittaker of Myrtle Beach is the Doctor of
the Day for the General Assembly.
The following Bill was read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
S. 535 -- Senator Moore: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 22-2-190, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JURY AREAS FOR MAGISTRATES' COURT, SO AS TO REVISE THE AREAS FOR AIKEN COUNTY.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3185 -- Reps. P. Harris, Waldrop, Neilson, J. Brown, Inabinett, Rhoad and Shissias: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 43-35-13 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO VULNERABLE ADULT MAY BE CONSIDERED ABUSED OR NEGLECTED FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE VULNERABLE ADULT IS BEING FURNISHED NONMEDICAL REMEDIAL TREATMENT BY SPIRITUAL MEANS.
Rep. CANTY explained the Bill.
Reps. FLEMING, FAIR, HERDKLOTZ, DAVENPORT, MASON, MARCHBANKS, R. SMITH and LIMBAUGH objected to the Bill.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3124 -- Reps. Cromer, Keyserling, Meacham, Stille, Richardson, Stuart and Cotty: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-470, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DISPOSITION OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST PREMIUM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THREE DOLLARS, RATHER THAN ONE DOLLAR, OF THE YEARLY PREMIUM FOR UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, RATHER THAN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE COSTS OF ADMINISTERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-73-738, RATHER THAN ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 10, TITLE 56; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 38-73-738 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A SYSTEM WHEREBY THE DEPARTMENT OF
Rep. COOPER proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\PT\1749JM.95).
Amend the report, as and if amended, by striking Section 56-1-75, as contained in SECTION 1, beginning at Line 28 on Page 3124-1 and ending at Line 42 on Page 3124-2, and inserting:
/SECTION 1. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 56-1-75. (A) The department shall not issue a driver's license to any person who is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age until the applicant has provided the department satisfactory evidence of successful completion of an approved driver training course as provided in this section.
(B) This requirement does not apply to a beginner's permit as provided in Section 56-1-50; however, it must be complied with before the issuance of a special restricted license as provided for in Section 56-1-180.
(C) An `approved driver training course' for purposes of this section is a driver training course which has been approved by the South Carolina Department of Education or the South Carolina Department of Public Safety and conducted by:
(1) a recognized secondary school, college, or university;
(2) instructors certified by the South Carolina Department of Education or the South Carolina Department of Public Safety; or
(3) any other school approved and supervised by the South Carolina Department of Education or the South Carolina Department of Public Safety.
(D) The requirements of the course must include the following minimum criteria:
(1) eight hours of classroom instruction for driver training school approved courses;
(2) six hours of actual on-street practice driving;
(4) a relevant test on the course material.
(E) For purposes of this section `satisfactory evidence' is a certificate, on a form prescribed by the Department of Revenue and Taxation, signed by an official of the school, the South Carolina Department of Education or the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, which certifies that:
(1) the person achieved a passing grade on a relevant test on the course material;
(2) the course was approved by and the instructors were certified by the South Carolina Department of Education or the South Carolina Department of Public Safety; and
(3) for schools other than recognized secondary schools, colleges, or universities, the school was approved and supervised by the South Carolina Department of Education or the South Carolina Department of Public Safety.
(F) Successful completion of an approved driver training course as provided in this section entitles the person to the driver training credit provided in Regulation 69-13.2(I) for youthful operators.
(G) The department, upon satisfactory proof that a minor who is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age has become a resident of South Carolina and has a valid driver's license from his prior state of residence but has not completed an approved driver training course, may grant the minor a temporary driver's license under such terms considered necessary by the department to allow the minor to operate a motor vehicle of a specified type or class in this State in order to obtain the driver training course necessary for a driver's license in South Carolina."/
Amend title to conform.
Rep. COOPER explained the amendment.
Rep. RICHARDSON spoke against the amendment.
Rep. CROMER moved to commit the Bill to the Committee on Labor Commerce and
Industry, which was agreed to.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3228 -- Reps. Neilson, Cain, McMahand, Littlejohn, Meacham, Hallman, Rice, L. Whipper, White, Simrill, Jaskwhich, Elliott, Whatley, Herdklotz, Easterday, Haskins, Seithel, Davenport and Limehouse: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-100, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EQUAL RIGHTS OF PARENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BOTH CUSTODIAL AND NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR CHILDREN'S SCHOOL ACTIVITIES.
The Education and Public Works Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\BBM\9932AC.95), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all of the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. Section 20-7-100 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 512 of 1994, is further amended to read:
"Section 20-7-100. The mother and father are the joint natural guardians of their minor children and are equally charged with the welfare and education of their minor children and the care and management of the estates of their minor children; and the mother and father have equal power, rights, and duties, and neither parent has any right paramount to the right of the other concerning the custody of the minor or the control of the services or the earnings of the minor or any other matter affecting the minor. Each parent, whether the custodial or noncustodial parent of the child, has equal access and the same right to obtain all educational records and medical records of their minor children and to participate in their children's school activities except in cases of supervised visitation or in cases where visitation has been denied. Neither parent shall forcibly take a child from the guardianship of the parent legally entitled to custody of the child."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
Rep. JASKWHICH explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
Reps. R. SMITH, HUFF, KIRSH, CARNELL, FLEMING, MOODY-LAWRENCE, S. WHIPPER and MASON objected to the Bill.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3305 -- Reps. Kennedy, Whatley, Askins, Delleney, McCraw, S. Whipper and Phillips: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 57-5-1140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSTALLATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ENTRANCES AND APRONS, SO AS TO REQUIRE INSTALLATION FOR EXISTING BUSINESS FACILITIES AND TO LIMIT THE LENGTH OF AN ENTRANCE.
The Committee on Education and Public Works proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\BBM\9930CM.95).
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 1 in its entirety and inserting:
/SECTION 1. Section 57-5-1140 of the 1976 Code, as added by Section 48A, Part II, Act 501 of 1992, is amended to read:
"Section 57-5-1140. (A) The department shall construct at its expense with its maintenance forces the portion within the right-of-way of entrances and aprons to state highways at any point necessary to render adequate ingress and egress to the abutting property at locations where the driveways will not constitute hazardous conditions.
(B) The driveways must be of access to existing developed property or property that is being developed for the personal use of the owner and not for speculative or resale purposes. An entrance ten feet wide (paved portion) measured at right angles to the centerline of the driveway is the maximum width for one-way traffic. An entrance sixteen feet wide (paved portion) is the maximum width for two-way traffic. If pipe culvert is necessary for drainage, the department shall install the amount necessary for twelve inch, fifteen inch, eighteen inch, twenty-four inch, or thirty inch pipe. Should the driveway installation require pipe larger than thirty inches, the department may install the pipe and charge the homeowner for the difference in cost between thirty inch pipe and larger diameter pipe required.
(C) The driveways must be of access to existing developed property
or property that is being developed for the business use of the owners. An
entrance twenty feet wide (paved portion) measured at right angles to the
centerline of the driveway is the maximum width for one-way traffic. An
entrance fifty feet wide (paved portion) is the maximum width for two-way
traffic. If a pipe culvert is necessary for drainage, the department may
install the pipe at the business owner's expense.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. KENNEDY explained the amendment.
Reps. MARCHBANKS, HERDKLOTZ, LIMEHOUSE, ROBINSON, FLEMING, SANDIFER, SEITHEL, KEEGAN and FULMER objected to the Bill.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3534 -- Reps. Wilkins, Tripp, Knotts, Whatley, Harrell, Wofford, A. Young, Hutson, Sandifer, Walker, Littlejohn, Herdklotz, Jaskwhich, Meacham, Fleming, Cain, Kelley, Simrill, Law, Mason, Jennings, Kennedy, Cato, Rice, Klauber, Stuart, Gamble, J. Young, Cotty, Shissias, Haskins, Harrison, Riser, Huff, Robinson, Marchbanks, H. Brown, Witherspoon, Baxley, Lanford, Waldrop and Easterday: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAXATION, BY ADDING CHAPTER 10 ENACTING THE ENTERPRISE ZONE ACT OF 1995 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ENTERPRISE ZONES IN WHICH VARIOUS TAX INCENTIVES MAY APPLY FOR BUSINESSES, TO PROVIDE THE CRITERIA FOR AREAS TO QUALIFY AS ENTERPRISE ZONES, TO PROVIDE THAT BUSINESSES QUALIFY FOR ENTERPRISE ZONE INCENTIVES BY MEANS OF ENTERING INTO A REVITALIZATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES, DEPENDING ON ELIGIBILITY, THAT INCLUDE THE MAXIMUM CREDIT ALLOWED UNDER THE TARGETED JOBS TAX CREDIT AND AN ADDITIONAL CREDIT FOR EMPLOYEES FORMERLY RECEIVING AFDC, FEE IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR PROPERTY TAXES, RETAINING AN AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEE WAGES NOT TO EXCEED FIVE PERCENT FOR FIFTEEN YEARS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AND
Rep. McELVEEN spoke upon the Bill.
The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill on third reading.
Rep. R. SMITH demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.
The Bill was read the third time and ordered sent to the Senate by a division vote of 95 to 0.
I have voted for H. 3534, the Governor's Enterprise Zone Bill, which was first placed on the desks of members yesterday, because I want to cooperate in economic development efforts, and I have considerable confidence in the Commerce Secretary, Mr. Royall. I have concerns, however.
On third reading, I asked for an explanation of several points; but no sponsor of the Bill would respond. (I did not ask these questions on second reading, as I was trying to read the Bill during debate.) I hope these questions will be explored in the Senate:
1) Is the charge of a fee of up to $2000 of a potential business a good policy move? Can counties use similar devices to defray development costs?
2) Is the percentage deduction from an employee's income not a new tax? What does the employee get for the money he pays? (Most companies would give something to the employee, i.e. stock.) Should an employee be required by law to pay for training, site development, property acquisition and the other authorized purposes for which the employee deductions may be used?
3) Has this plan been used in any other state; and, if so, was it successful? I recall reading that Alabama used the enterprise zones and employee deductions in recruiting Mercedes; what has been the result of their experience?
4) Why is there such an objection to local involvement? (I unsuccessfully
proposed two amendments to permit this yesterday.) Will existing
businesses in enterprise zones be allowed to benefit from this law? Can a
county utilize this law without Coordinating Advisory Council permission?
Rep. JOSEPH T. McELVEEN, JR.
The SPEAKER granted Reps. HALLMAN, FULMER and SEITHEL a temporary leave of absence to attend the funeral of Senator Glenn McConnell's father.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. TUCKER a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3613 -- Reps. Wilkins, Huff, Delleney, Knotts, Townsend, Limehouse, Keegan, Witherspoon, Fleming, Marchbanks, Tripp, Felder, Lanford, Herdklotz, Easterday, A. Young, Hallman, Law, Limbaugh, Cotty, Thomas, Harrell, Sandifer, Sharpe, Fair, Haskins, Richardson, Fulmer, J. Young, Chamblee, Riser, Cain, Jaskwhich, Beatty, R. Smith, Simrill, Walker, Robinson, Rice, Dantzler, Stille, Stuart, Wofford, Wells, Trotter, Mason, Clyburn, Harrison, Klauber, Cato, Vaughn, Martin, Davenport and Kirsh: A BILL TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA FAMILY INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 1995 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE WELFARE POLICY OF THE STATE; TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REQUIRE THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO EXPAND ITS EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE SERVICES AND TO EXPAND ITS WORK SUPPORT PROGRAM STATEWIDE; TO REQUIRE AFDC RECIPIENTS TO ENTER AGREEMENTS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE AFDC AND TO PROVIDE SANCTIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE; TO REQUIRE THE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION TO PROVIDE THE
Printed Page 1090, Mar. 1
| Printed Page 1112, Mar. 1
|