Printed Page 1440, Mar. 9
| Printed Page 1460, Mar. 9
|
Printed Page 1440, Mar. 9
| Printed Page 1460, Mar. 9
| Rep. JENNINGS stated that the strict language of Rule 5.3 stated that the Bill shall include only provisions affecting revenue.
The SPEAKER stated that the second sentence of Rule 5.3 was the controlling language for the ruling on Part II Provisos.
Rep. JENNINGS stated that in its entirety, Section 47, defined the types of machines that may actually be licensed and Section A was a part of it.
The SPEAKER stated that there was already a license fee on machines and Section A expanded the number of machines subject to that fee.
Rep. JENNINGS stated that Section B raised the license fees of the machines described in Section A. He further stated that this raised an additional $21 million for operations and it had been appropriated in Part I.
The SPEAKER stated that it had been appropriated on the line cited earlier.
Rep. JENNINGS stated that without Section A, you did not have the machines to base the $21 million on.
Rep. JENNINGS further stated that he had cited precedence earlier, but that this situation was distinguishable in that the issue here dealt with a definition which actually raised revenue this year and the precedence affected only future years.
The SPEAKER stated the precedence was applicable to what was happening here. He further stated that he was not sure in what proportion Section A affected the estimates of revenue, but he did think that if you expanded the machines, it had some affect.
Rep. JENNINGS stated that this affected present revenue.
The SPEAKER stated that it was based on estimates, but it did apply to this fiscal year.
Rep. WILKES stated that if you strictly construe Rule 5.3, then the controlling question would be whether Section 47 was a provision affecting revenue and if so, then would the subsections following it be the rules, regulations, directives, and procedures relative thereto.
The SPEAKER stated that the second sentence of Rule 5.3 was the controlling sentence.
Rep. HUFF stated that under present law, the machines were legal and
certainly had a date under which they would become illegal under the Supreme
Court decision. He further stated that this merely expanded so to include slot
machines and it also said all other video games which do not disburse money. He
further stated that it did not affect revenue in Part I.
Rep. HASKINS stated that the question was whether it directly affected revenue and that striking the section did not directly affect the revenue unless you accepted the indirect argument that the machines would not be replaced with poker machines.
The SPEAKER stated that there was not a basis to make that argument.
Rep. HASKINS argued that it would then be an indirect affect.
Rep. WILKES stated that all of the sections were relative to Section 47 and it did affect the revenue in Part I.
The SPEAKER stated that he had looked at previous Points of Order particularly the March 12, 1992 Point of Order and he did find that there were estimates in Part I regarding the revenues from the machines and therefore, Section A met the test of Rule 5.3 in that it directly affected revenue in Part I and he overruled the Point of Order.
Rep. HUFF raised the Point of Order that Section D of Section 47 was out of order as it was not germane.
Rep. WILKES stated that Section D was relative to the title of Section 47 and it affected revenues.
Rep. JENNINGS stated that Section 47 clearly affected the revenue.
The SPEAKER stated that there was a difference between Section A and D in that D just changed the date of the metering device.
Rep. JENNINGS stated that it did affect revenue in that you had to read Section D with Sections A, B, & C and you can't isolate it and not consider the totality of Section 47.
The SPEAKER stated that if you strike A, then it would affect the portion of the $40 million estimate already appropriated but he questioned how changing the meter date affected the revenue in Part I.
Rep. JENNINGS stated that the whole intent was to generate revenues and account for those revenues and Section D did affect the revenues generated.
The SPEAKER questioned how it affected the license fees.
Rep. JENNINGS stated that you would have to determine what someone's logic
might be in determining whether or not to apply for a license based upon whether
or not they have a metering device.
The SPEAKER stated that if you are expanding the number of machines, then he understood that it generated more money, but he did not have the information to tell how many machines were going to be affected.
Rep. HARWELL stated that the Supreme Court had said that the machines were unlawful and that 65 percent of the machines fell in that category and of that about half of them had bought a two-year license. He further stated that it would have an impact on the budget.
Rep. HUFF stated that it simply delayed the requirements to put a meter from July 1, 1995 to July of 1998 and it appropriated no money.
Rep. WILKES stated that in Section A you were assuming that 65 percent of the machines were affected. He further stated that it was a part of Section 47 and had to be looked at totally.
Rep. KIRSH stated that Rule 5.3 stated that no provision shall be put in a permanent part of any such bill unless it relates directly to an appropriation being made or revenue provided therein for the fiscal year and that this did not relate to the fiscal year now, but rather to 1998.
Rep. FELDER stated that it did affect revenue from this year in that half of the machines could not be up and running.
Rep. WILKES stated that it can be determined just as well from Section B as it could be from Section A.
Rep. JENNINGS stated that the Department of Revenue had indicated there were some problems with the effective date and with that information there was a direct impact on revenue because if the machines were out there that could not be hooked up, then they will not obviously pay the licensing fee and be a direct impact of the revenue.
The SPEAKER stated that Section D did not meet the requirement of Rule 5.3 and he sustained the Point of Order and ordered Section D of Section 47 stricken from the Bill.
Rep. HASKINS raised the Point of Order that Subsection E which changed the hours of operation was out of order as it was not germane in that it did not have an affect on the appropriation of revenue in Part I.
Rep. WILKES stated that if you extended the hours of operation, then you
obviously increased the number of players and therefore, increasing the demand
for more machines which would be licensed.
Rep. WILKES inquired about the subsections being germane and what had been done on Subsection B.
The SPEAKER stated that he had not ruled on all of the subsections but that a Point of Order had been raised on Section A and Section D and he had ruled on that. He further stated that he thought the Point of Order on Subsection E was improper and he overruled that Point of Order.
Rep. BEATTY inquired what had been ruled out of order.
The SPEAKER stated that Section D had been ruled out of order but this vote was to table the entire Section 47.
Rep. RICHARDSON proposed the following Amendment No. 286-A, which was tabled.
Amend the bill as and if amended by deleting Subsection E on page 514 starting on line 29.
Rep. RICHARDSON explained the amendment.
Rep. WILKES spoke against the amendment.
Rep. HUFF spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. H. BROWN spoke against the amendment.
Rep. RICHARDSON spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. A. YOUNG moved to table the amendment.
Rep. RICHARDSON demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Askins Bailey Baxley Breeland Brown, G. Brown, H. Carnell Cave Cobb-Hunter Cotty Cromer Dantzler Felder Fulmer Gamble Hallman Harrell Harrison Harwell Hines Hutson
Jennings Keegan Kelley Kennedy Keyserling Kinon Klauber Knotts Koon Law Limbaugh Limehouse Lloyd McAbee Quinn Riser Scott Seithel Shissias Stille Stuart Townsend Tucker Whipper, S. White Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Worley Wright Young, A. Young, J.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Anderson Boan Brown, T. Cain Canty Cato Chamblee Clyburn Cooper Davenport Easterday Elliott Fair Fleming Govan Harris, J. Haskins Herdklotz Huff Jaskwhich Kirsh Lanford Littlejohn Marchbanks Martin Mason McCraw McElveen McMahand McTeer Meacham Moody-Lawrence Neal Phillips Rhoad Rice Richardson Robinson Sandifer Sharpe Sheheen Simrill Smith, R. Spearman Stoddard Tripp Trotter Vaughn Walker Whatley
So, the amendment was tabled.
A. Article 20, Chapter 21, Title 12 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 12-21-2795. (A) Beginning July 1, 1995, a tax equal to two percent of the gross machine income is imposed and must be remitted to the department weekly on a schedule determined by the department. The revenue must be remitted by electronic transfer in a manner provided by the department. All payments not remitted when due must be paid together with a penalty under the provisions of Section 12-54-40. For purposes of this section `gross machine income' means the sum of all cash/money put into the machine.
(B) A machine owner, operator, or licensed establishment who falsely reports or wilfully fails to report the amount due required by this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not less than one year nor more than five years."
B. This section takes effect July 1, 1995./
Renumber sections & amend totals/title to conform.
Rep. RICHARDSON explained the amendment.
Rep. HARWELL spoke against the amendment.
Rep. CANTY spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. KNOTTS moved to table the amendment.
Rep. RICHARDSON demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Askins Bailey Baxley Brown, G. Brown, H. Cain Carnell Cato Cave
Chamblee Cooper Cotty Cromer Dantzler Davenport Elliott Fulmer Gamble Hallman Harrell Harrison Harwell Haskins Howard Hutson Jennings Keegan Kelley Kennedy Keyserling Kinon Klauber Knotts Koon Law Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Martin McAbee Quinn Rhoad Riser Sandifer Scott Seithel Sharpe Shissias Smith, D. Stille Stoddard Stuart Townsend Tripp Walker Wells White Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Worley Wright Young, A. Young, J.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Beatty Boan Breeland Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Canty Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Delleney Easterday Fair Fleming Govan Herdklotz Hines Hodges Huff Jaskwhich Kirsh Lanford Lloyd Marchbanks Mason McCraw McElveen McMahand McTeer Meacham Moody-Lawrence Neal Phillips Rice Richardson Robinson Sheheen Simrill Smith, R. Spearman Thomas Trotter Tucker Vaughn Whatley Whipper, S.
Rep. GOVAN proposed the following Amendment No. 290 (Doc Name
L:\council\legis\amend\JIC\5594HTC.95), which was ruled out of order.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Part II, Section 47, page 514,
subsection D., line 25, by striking /1998/ and inserting /1997/.
Renumber sections/amend title/totals to conform.
Rep. GOVAN explained the amendment.
Rep. ROBINSON raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 290 was out of order as the section it referred to had been stricken from the Bill.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order and ruled the amendment out of order.
Rep. SHEHEEN moved to table the section.
Rep. H. BROWN demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anderson Beatty Boan Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Cain Canty Cato Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Davenport Delleney Easterday Fair Fleming Govan Harris, J. Haskins Herdklotz Hines Hodges Howard Huff Jaskwhich Kinon Kirsh Knotts Limehouse Lloyd Marchbanks Mason McCraw McElveen McMahand McTeer Meacham Neal Rice Robinson Rogers Sandifer Scott Sheheen Simrill Smith, R. Stoddard Tripp
Trotter Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wilder Wright
Those who voted in the negative are:
Askins Bailey Baxley Breeland Brown, G. Brown, H. Carnell Cave Chamblee Cotty Cromer Dantzler Elliott Fulmer Gamble Hallman Harrell Harris, P. Harrison Harwell Hutson Jennings Keegan Kelley Kennedy Keyserling Klauber Koon Law Limbaugh Littlejohn Martin McAbee Moody-Lawrence Quinn Rhoad Riser Seithel Sharpe Shissias Smith, D. Spearman Stille Stuart Thomas Townsend Tucker Wells Whatley Whipper, S. White Wilkes Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Worley Young, A. Young, J.
So, the House refused to table the section.
Rep. H. BROWN proposed the following Amendment No. 291 (Doc Name
L:\council\legis\amend\PT\1810DW.95), which was ruled out of order.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Part II, SECTION 47, Page 514, Line
25, by striking /July 1, 1995 1998/ and inserting /July 1
June 30, 1995 1996/
Renumber sections & amend totals/title to conform.
Rep. H. BROWN explained the amendment.
Rep. HASKINS raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 291 was out of order as the section it referred to had been stricken from the Bill.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order and ruled the amendment out of order.
Rep. HARRISON proposed the following Amendment No. 292 (Doc Name
L:\council\legis\amend\GJK\21545HTC.95), which was rejected.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Part II, Section 47, page 514, by
inserting immediately after line 22 /D. The metering requirement of Section
12-21-2776(B) of the 1976 Code is postponed until July 1, 1998. The Department
of Revenue and Taxation from revenues accruing to it pursuant to Section
12-21-2720(C) shall notify licensees of the postponement authorized by this
subsection./
Amend further, Section 47, page 515, by inserting immediately after line 17 an appropriately lettered subsection to read:
( ) Section 12-21-2791 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 12-21-2791. Any location which operates or allows the operation of coin-operated machines pursuant to Section 12-21-2720(A)(3) which provides payouts authorized pursuant to Section 16-19-60 shall limit the cash payout for credits earned for free games to two thousand five hundred credits per player per location during any twenty-four hour period. The cash value of credits for each free game shall be limited to five cents may limit the cash payouts to one hundred twenty-five dollars per player per location during any twenty-four-hour period provided that the owner or operator of the location displays a prominent notice above or upon the machine that the maximum amount authorized for refund on such machine is one hundred twenty-five dollars per player during any twenty-four-hour period."/
Renumber sections & amend totals/title to conform.
Rep. HARRISON explained the amendment.
Rep. HASKINS spoke against the amendment and moved to table the
amendment.
Printed Page 1440, Mar. 9
| Printed Page 1460, Mar. 9
|