| Printed Page 4393, May 31 | Printed Page 4410, May 31 |

Rep. CROMER: "I move to resolve into the Committee of the Whole to discuss issues concerning low level nuclear wastes and video poker."

Rep. HASKINS: "I raise the Point of Order that in order to go into the Committee of the Whole, according to Rule 4.10, that the parliamentary steps in making use of a Committee of the Whole are essentially the same as those involved in referring a subject to an ordinary committee and for a subject to be referred to a committee by this Body, we must be on that subject and so it would be improper to move to go into a Committee of the Whole to discuss matters that are not before this Body presently, because we would have no authority, according to our Rules, to refer a subject to a committee that is not before this Body. The only way that we can refer a subject to committee is by motion to commit. If you look in Mason's, it states that the motion to go into the Committee of the Whole is roughly equivalent to a motion to commit and we cannot commit a bill or a matter unless it is before us."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Under your theory, when may the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole?"

Rep. HASKINS: "When we have a conference report before us."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Our status is being made and it deals with the subject that is included in the motion."

Rep. HASKINS: "At that point, we would have the subject before us and this Body could commit that subject to a Committee of the Whole. Otherwise, that language in 4.10 that says that the parliamentary steps in making use of a Committee of the Whole are the same as involved in referring the subject to an ordinary committee or it would be of no affect, because you would not be following the parliamentary steps, you would be allowing a subject to be committed to a Committee of the Whole when it is not before us."

Rep. HASKINS: "Sure. And in all cases, the House may commit Bills to committees, but not when they are not before us."

Rep. SHEHEEN: "Mr. Speaker, that has never been the interpretation of that rule before and certainly Mason's has not ever reflected that and you entertained the motion for the Committee of the Whole on an earlier time when there was no Bill in front of this House. All you are required is that there be a limitation as to the subject matter in the motion and Mr. Cromer's motion specifically limited that."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "The way that I read the rule is that I did not read or read into or see in the Rules any limitation to restrict when the motion is made. I'm having problems following your theory and if you want to elaborate, you may, but I don't follow you so far and I don't see any reference that you are making where that implies or means that you have to be on the subject."

Rep. HASKINS: "If I could elaborate, Section 652 of Mason's, which is the rule that governs going into a Committee of the Whole, Subsection 2 says the motion to resolve into a Committee of the Whole is equivalent to the motion to commit. It takes precedent in that order. Comparing that rule with our House Rule which says that the parliamentary steps in making use of a Committee of the Whole are essentially the same as those in referring a subject to an ordinary committee. Again, it is stating that it is the same as committing a matter to a committee. The only way a matter could be referred or committed to an ordinary committee in this Body, is either through reference by the Speaker, or by a motion to commit on the floor, and a motion to commit is out of order if the subject is not before us."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "I read that, Section 652, Subsection 2, since it has an and in there, I read that sentence together basically saying that the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole is like a motion to commit and takes the same precedent. I read that to mean that such as can you table a motion to resolve yourself into a Committee of the Whole. You can table the motion to commit or you can table the motion to resolve. I read it in one context and not as a period before the word and."

Rep. HASKINS: "I read equivalent as the same as."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Yes sir, I understand. In all aspects. Anyone else want to be heard on the Point of Order?"

Rep. ROBINSON: "I would add to Mr. Haskins' argument that this motion is out of order because, and I don't have the wording, but his motion was to resolve into a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of

SPEAKER WILKINS: "4.9 states that no Bill or Resolution may be considered by the Committee of the Whole except by two-thirds vote unless the same has first been considered by the appropriate standing committee of the House."

Rep. ROBINSON: "Yes sir, and in light of that language and in Section 652 under Mason's, it says that for the purpose of considering, there is nothing that says the specific item that you want to discuss is what has to be in the motion. The motion has to be more broad or more general than that."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "How do you read that? He stated what he wanted to discuss. He wanted to discuss the issue of low level nuclear wastes."

Rep. ROBINSON: "I don't see anything that has been discussed by any appropriate standing committee that would allow us prior to this to take that up."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Well, that gets us back to 4.9."

Rep. ROBINSON: "Yes sir."

Rep. RICHARDSON: "Mr. Speaker, I would cite two points that directly contradict what Mr. Haskins and Mr. Robinson are saying, that actually the first section, Section 650, states that the purpose of the Committee of the Whole is to permit more free and informed discussion of any question that could be had in a deliberative body, acting under its ordinary rules or procedure. So, it is going out of its way to say that the reason you can do this, is to avoid the normal procedure, which is what Mr. Haskins is hanging his hat on and then over in Section 652, the wording under Section 1, do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider or for the purpose of considering the subject which is desired to consider more freely. It is nothing that says, as Mr. Haskins said, that it has to be tight, that it has to be previously, a subject previously considered by a committee, a subject previously..."

Rep. RICHARDSON: "I would read that, Mr. Speaker, by saying, you could read it two ways, one is if it hadn't been considered by a committee, then you need a two-thirds vote, and if it had been considered by the committee, then all you would need is a majority. But, I would still go back to 650, Section 1, which says the whole purpose is to have informal discussion outside the normal rules of procedure."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Your point being that you don't have to be on the subject to move to resolve."

Rep. RICHARDSON: "Absolutely."

SPEAKER WILKINS:"I'm inclined to agree with you on that."

Rep. SHEHEEN: "Actually the second sentence which Mr. Robinson points to, we, the Bill which discusses those things as a Bill authored by the Ways and Means Committee and amended by the Senate, and includes those items in the Senate Amendments, under his theory, we could never discuss any Senate Amendment that was added to a House Bill if that Senate Amendment had not already been discussed. Obviously, the House did not include low level nuclear wastes in its Budget Bill and we considered and rejected video poker, which was the two subject matters in Mr. Cromer's motion, but that Bill is a House Bill authored by the Ways and Means Committee which was the subject of discussion by Mr. Brown in his status report yesterday and he distributed written materials which both discussed video poker and low level nuclear wastes."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "I agree with you, that is the effect of that rule if I apply a strict interpretation to it, but how do you get around the language that says unless the same has first been considered by an appropriate standing committee of the House. That has to be considered."

Rep. SHEHEEN: "That Bill has been to a standing committee of the House, was authored by a standing committee of the House. It says no Bill or Resolution. That Bill, the Ways and Means, 3692, is authored by the Ways and Means Committee."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "His motion, as I understand it, is not to discuss a Bill, but to discuss a particular issue of low level nuclear waste, which was not contained in 3692, when it left the House or when it was considered by Ways and Means."

Rep. SHEHEEN: "If he amends his motion to say to consider low level nuclear waste and video poker as contained in House Bill 3692, then that covers it. Everybody understands that is what it is in relation to."

Rep. HODGES: "Let me ask you this question, if the motion were to include the term, I think the term is, the recapitulation figures, that include the revenues that are placed in the budget. That was a provision that was in both the House and Senate Bill and I presume would also incorporate those video poker monies as well as the low level nuclear waste monies. Would it not?"

Rep. SHEHEEN: "Video poker money in the House version of the Bill is 37 million dollars."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "I didn't hear video poker money in the motion. Did you mention video poker?"

Rep. SHEHEEN: "Yes sir, he did."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "He said the issues of..."

Rep. SHEHEEN: "Low level nuclear wastes and video poker. Each of those items is included in the House version of the Bill, the 37 million in the House version of the Bill for the first six months of revenue from Barnwell and there is also money from video poker in the House Bill. Mr. Brown, I think, will verify that."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "I am going to overrule your Point of Order. Mr. Haskins, I find nothing in the Rules or in Mason's which restricts when the motion to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole can be made. I don't interpret 652, Section 2, as you do. As to the issue, as to 4.9, which Mr. Robinson raised, basically 4.9 requiring a two-thirds vote unless it has been considered by the appropriate standing committee, since low level nuclear waste money is in the budget and since the poker machine monies were in the budget and was deliberated on by the Ways and Means Committee, I find the requirement of 4.9 is met on that. So, I am going to overrule the Point of Order on that. The Point is overruled."

The question then recurred to the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole on the issues of low level nuclear waste and poker machine money.

Rep. SHARPE moved to table the motion to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole.

Further proceedings were interrupted by a Conference Committee Report, the pending question being the motion to table the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.

The COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
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 DEPARTMENT ON-LINE ACCESS TO JOB VACANCY DATA; TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF PORTIONS OF A RECIPIENT'S AFDC TO EMPLOYERS TO SUPPLEMENT WAGES PAID TO THE RECIPIENT; TO DIRECT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE A TAX CREDIT TO EMPLOYERS WHO HIRE AFDC RECIPIENTS; TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES TO TARGET AFDC RECIPIENTS FOR EMPLOYMENT; TO ENHANCE SERVICES TO TEEN PARENTS; TO REQUIRE NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS OF CHILDREN RECEIVING AFDC TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEPARTMENT'S EMPLOYEE TRAINING PROGRAM; TO DIRECT SPENDING FIFTY PERCENT OF JOB TRAINING AND PARTNERSHIP ACT FUNDS ON AFDC RECIPIENTS; TO REQUIRE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OFFICES TO ESTABLISH EDUCATION AND TRAINING GOALS; TO REQUIRE AFDC RECIPIENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN FAMILY SKILLS TRAINING; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-420, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE COURT TO ORDER A NONCUSTODIAL

That the same do pass with the following amendments:

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

SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the South Carolina Family Independence Act of 1995.

SECTION 2. It is the policy of this State that personal responsibility and parental responsibility must be met if citizens are to attain independence. Further, it is the policy of this State that the welfare system must be based upon a reciprocal agreement between welfare recipients and taxpayers. There also must exist a common goal and vision between the parties, working together at the community level to make life better for all. It must assist families to become economically independent, provide tools to achieve and maintain self-sufficiency, and deter abuse of the system through fair and meaningful sanctions.

(1) `Aid to Families with Dependent Children' or `AFDC' means cash payments or stipends paid to individuals who meet established eligibility criteria.

(2) `Department' means the South Carolina State Department of Social Services.

(3) `Welfare' means cash assistance payments through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program which must be provided as a stipend to assist families to become employed.

SECTION 1. It is the mandate of the General Assembly that the welfare system in South Carolina be restructured to assist families in poverty to become socially and economically independent. It is the purpose and goal of this legislation to establish the reform of the welfare system as a critical priority for the state and all of its agencies. Cooperation and innovation within and among all state agencies is necessary for the achievement of this goal. The office of the governor shall designate the lead agency for purposes of coordination and the avoidance, where practical, of duplication of services. The State Department of Social Services is mandated to fundamentally change its economic services operation to emphasize employment and training with a minor welfare component. To that end, the department shall expand its employment and training program statewide and shall, to the extent possible, coordinate with the existing resources of other state agencies when they are available and it is cost efficient to do so. The agency shall assist welfare recipients to maximize their strengths and abilities to become gainfully employed. Welfare assistance must be provided as a stipend to a family unit as long as there is satisfactory participation in required employment and training activities.

SECTION 2. (A) To emphasize the reciprocal responsibility that exists between welfare recipients and the taxpayers who pay for welfare, an agreement must be signed by each adult AFDC recipient. If a minor mother is living in the home of her parents or guardian, the minor mother and her parent or guardian must sign the agreement. The agreement shall describe the actions the recipient must take to become employed and the time frames for completing these actions. The agreement also shall describe the services the department shall provide or coordinate to assist the recipient in becoming employed. The department shall place a major emphasis on job development and on maximizing employment opportunities within the State. Assistance must be provided by the

| Printed Page 4393, May 31 | Printed Page 4410, May 31 |