| Printed Page 3950, May 21 | Printed Page 3970, May 22 |

Rep. FELDER: "Well, a teaching hospital is certainly an element and an institution of the Commission on Higher Education, Mr. Speaker. A teaching hospital is different from a regular hospital. I know that under disproportionate share which is an issue which has been brought up in public hearings and indigency care. A teaching hospital has greater benefits in regards to the amount of money that they can receive under disproportionate share under Higher Rules and other rules that apply to medicaid. Therefore, if this is a teaching hospital, which it has got to be, it is our teaching hospital, the Charleston area where this hospital is located has a clinic where people receive benefits and where they can come in and 70 percent of the care given in this clinic is medicaid, a public indigency health, 17 percent are UMA business from the Medical Hospital. Therefore, this is directly related to the Commission on Higher Education. It directly relates to the money and the money in the Bill. The money in the Bill for the lease goes to retire the debt and goes to these services there and that has got to make it relevent to the Commission on Higher Education and if it were not a teaching hospital, then it would be different. This is a public teaching hospital for the State of South Carolina."

Rep. SEITHEL: "First of all, as for there being a typographical error, the title was amended in the Senate, and the Bill that shows up in all of our Bill books does not indicate that the title has ever been amended. Even if it was just a mistake on behalf of the Senate, in Doyle vs. King, the Court said that even if there was a typographical error, there was nothing that they could do to go back and fix that in retropsect. It is my understanding that if a title is passed by the House and the title is passed by the Senate, then it cannot be amended to the third degree, so I don't think that there is anyway that we can fix this title."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "That issue is not before me. Whether there is a remedy for my ruling, if I rule it out of order really, is not before me and should not affect my ruling."

Rep. SEITHEL: "In Douglas vs. Watson, talking about the one subject matter, it says that after all is said and done the issue to be determined depends upon the constitutionality of the Act. In every Act or Resolution, having the force of law shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in the title. It goes on further to say that the topics in the body of the Act should be kindred in nature and have a legitimate and natural association with the subject of the title. I just can't see how consulting

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Would you agree with me that if the Senate had struck the title and put a title more germane to the body of the Bill, it would be properly before us?"

Rep. QUINN: "I don't want to belabor this anymore, but what I really think is the Point here, and I think Mr. Felder enforces this, is that again, germaneness is not the issue. He is absolutely right. It may well be germane and maybe we could amend the title, but the Point is..."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "You can make that Point of Order."

Rep. QUINN: "I may make it if I lose this, but the Point is that the Constitution is much stronger than germaneness. Germaneness is the rule that we created in trying to comply with this Article and I think what we are talking about is much more clear than germaneness. That title deals with a differeent subject than the body of the Bill and you couldn't look at this calendar, and know what that Bill dealt with. I think it is very plain."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Mr. Martin?"

Rep. MARTIN: "Briefly, in as much as we have apparently focused ourselves on the constitutionality of it and whether or not you are to find that the actions we take are within the confine of the Constitution."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Well, that was his Point of Order, whether or not it violated the Constitution, Article 3, Section 17."

Rep. MARTIN: "That's right, but we have talked all around it and apparently germaneness is out of the way now, and if, in fact, you find it arises to the level through his Point of Order, I would just point out to you the cases of McCollum vs. Snipes and O'Shields vs. Caldwell indicate the law is well settled and the burden is on the persons claiming the Act to be unconstitutional to prove and show that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. And, I would submit to you even if they have a Point with which to argue, which I would disagree with you on, that they are straining to get to that level and certainly have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the burden with which you are required to hold them to in making your determination."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Anyone else want to be heard on the Point of Order? I am ready to rule. I want to first thank Mr. Quinn for alerting me to the Point of Order and allowing us to do extensive research. We have reviewed the appropriate authorities and without him telling me that, I would not have had the opportunity to do that, and I certainly feel more comfortable having reviewed all of the appropriate authorities, the Supreme Court opinions, the Attorney General opinions and House

Rep. QUINN: "Mr. Speaker, Representative Felder brought up another Point on his argument on this issue when he began to discuss the appropriations involved in the lease and what the financial issues involved in the lease are and under Rule 4.4 and 5.1, if a Bill deals with an appropriation, if it appropriates funds, it must be considered by the Ways and Means Committee under Rule 4.4. Under Rule 5.1, they have got to approve it under certain circumstances, and it even goes on further to reinforce Rule 4.4. Mr. Felder, himself, brought up the Point which deals with funding issues and I think if you look at just one example of it, on Page 8 of the Bill, the proceeds of the lease and from the sale of these assets must be used for the retirement of outstanding indebtedness and other revenues and payments received from it in connection with it from this lease. And it must be dedicated solely for the use of the Medical University and the operation of the Board of Trustees. That appropriates money, it lays out the way to raise revenue and it tells you how to spend it and I think, under Rule 4.4, this Bill should go to the Ways and Means Committee."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Anyone want to be heard on that Point of Order? Mr. Felder."

Rep. FELDER: "Mr. Speaker, first of all under Rule 4.4, the language that Mr. Quinn refers to says directly appropriating money and no where in this Bill does it say direct appropriation of money. A direct appropriation is a proactive act by something or somebody, a principality of the government. Second of all, if you cannot refer this Bill to a commitee because there aren't but three actions that can be taken on the amendment and that is to concur, non-concur, or to amend."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "You don't think we can table it?"

Rep. FELDER: "Yes, we could table it."

Rep. FELDER: "We could continue it."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Could we adjourn debate on it?"

Rep. FELDER: "Yes sir."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "But we can't send it back to a committee?"

Rep. FELDER: "No sir, because..."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "If you can do all of those things, then why can't you send it back to committee?"

Rep. FELDER: "Because, Mr. Speaker, concurrence or continuance or tabling is a termination, which is a higher motion under rules of parliamentary procedure. But, in effect, sending it to a committee is trying to do indirectly what cannot be done directly and that is to send it to a committee for delay purposes or for some purposes or other, procedurally. The only procedural things that can happen to a Bill, certainly we can kill it, but really there is a special section that says that when you put on a Senate amendment, the Point is that we can concur. We can non-concur. If you send it to a committee, then you thwart the will of the House to concur or non-concur. We can amend it and it would immediately leave and go back to the Senate. If the committee gets it, they could amend it and it would have to go back to the House."

Rep. QUINN: "I think you have several Points where we have committed a Bill to a committee and this is the same type motion as the committee before and I think, that the problem that exist here in the rule is that they even go so far to say in what instances it is allowed in when it talks about perdiem. I think clearly, first of all, my whole point to this, is that we didn't have public hearings offered. If we did have public hearings on this, I would appreciate it if Mr. Felder wouldn't remark as to my purpose for my Points of Order. This appropriates money, he even said it himself. It raises money we don't have. It tells us how to spend it. It ought to be considered by the Ways and Means Committee under Rule 4.4."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Again, unlike the first ruling, there are plenty or precedents on this, and I am ready to rule unless someone else wants to be heard. Again, Mr. Quinn was kind enough to share his thoughts with me and allowed us to do some research and there are several prior precedents. The best explanation was provided by Speaker Sol Blatt in 1973 on this particular Point about a Bill that appropriated money and being sent to Ways and Means. It was a House Bill that had gone to the Senate and the Senate amended it. It was appropriations and it came back and the motion was made under Rule 4.4 and Rule 5.1 that therefore, it should go to Ways and Means before the House considered the Senate

Rep. QUINN: "I have one more here. The fiscal impact statement. I think it is Rule 5.2? I am just raising the Point that this Bill doesn't have a fiscal impact where this Bill clearly has fiscal impact."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Rule 5.13?"

Rep. QUINN: "Yes sir."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Each Bill affecting expenditures of money by the State shall prior to receiving second reading have attached to it...basically the fiscal impact statement?"

Rep. QUINN: "Obviously, we are dealing with a great deal of money that the State expends when we hand some of these dollars over to the corporation involved."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "But, that also speaks to a Bill going to a committee and the committee, there is another rule in here that requires a committee to make sure the fiscal impact statement is attached to it when it comes out of committee and it says prior to second reading and you have got a whole different animal when you have got a Bill coming over for concurrence. So, I don't think that rule applies. I overrule that Point of Order."

Rep. SEITHEL: "Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to reconsider the first Point of Order. I think that in part of your statement that you made that you did not feel like any kind of logrolling attempt had been made on this Body. However, I feel..."

SPEAKER WILKINS: "No, I didn't say that. I said that that was one of the purposes as defined in the various cases. One of the purposes of Article 3, Section 17 was to prevent logrolling. Also, to prevent us being ambushed, legislation by ambush, not knowing what is in a Bill. And, also to generally inform the public. Those have been stated in the cases. I was just citing the cases when I said that."

Rep. SEITHEL: "I would just like to say that because the Senate took the opportunity to amend a House version of the Bill, that the Body

SPEAKER WILKINS: "Well, I agree with you. I think that those are very valid points that go to the merits of the Bill and the merits of what action this Body ought to take on the Bill, but I don't think it goes with the Point of Order. Obviously, if they had taken a Senate bill, and we could have given it three readings over here, but in often cases and like we have found recently in the last two weeks, they opted to take a House Bill and amend it. We did that last Thursday on the Speed Limit Bill and so, maybe both bodies should look at some Joint Rules to prevent that. But, I think it is a valid procedure, and while, I am sympathetic to your argument, I don't think it is pursuasive to the Point of Order Mr. Quinn raised."

Rep. QUINN spoke against the Senate amendments.

Rep. YOUNG-BRICKELL moved that the House do now adjourn, which was adopted.

Further proceedings were interrupted by adjournment, the pending question being consideration of Senate amendments.

Rep. J. BROWN moved to reconsider the vote whereby debate was adjourned on S. 1147 until Tuesday, May 28, and the motion was noted.

The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:

H. 5036 -- Reps. Cooper, Townsend, Stille, Carnell and McAbee: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO HONOR THE HONORABLE CEBRON DANIEL "C.D." CHAMBLEE OF ANDERSON FOR HIS TRULY OUTSTANDING SERVICE IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA

H. 5037 -- Reps. Cooper, Townsend, Stille, Carnell and McAbee: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE HONORABLE JOHN W. TUCKER, JR., OF ANDERSON COUNTY, OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND, FOR HIS TWELVE YEARS OF OUTSTANDING LEGISLATIVE SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

H. 5038 -- Reps. Cooper, Townsend, Stille, Carnell and McAbee: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE DEEP DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA UPON LEARNING OF THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE PATRICK BRADLEY HARRIS OF ANDERSON COUNTY NOT TO OFFER FOR REELECTION AFTER TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TO WISH HIM THE VERY BEST IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS ON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT.

H. 5040 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE HIS EXCELLENCY TENG HUI LEE, PRESIDENT OF TAIWAN, REPUBLIC OF CHINA, UPON HIS UPCOMING INAUGURATION ON MAY 20, 1996, WHICH MARKS THE FIRST INAUGURATION OF A FREELY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF TAIWAN.

H. 5042 -- Rep. R. Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING JAMES WILLIAM MCNEILL III OF AIKEN COUNTY FOR BEING CHOSEN THE 1995-96 TEACHER OF THE YEAR.

H. 5044 -- Reps. Koon, Gamble, Knotts, Riser, Spearman, Stuart and Wright: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING JANE DAVIS GRIFFIN, DIRECTOR OF THE LEXINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM, FOR HER MANY YEARS OF OUTSTANDING, DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF LEXINGTON COUNTY AND WISHING HER MUCH HAPPINESS FOLLOWING HER RETIREMENT.

H. 5048 -- Reps. J. Brown and Scott: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE MR. WILLIE M. MCLAUGHLIN FOR BEING ELECTED AS THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT COMMANDER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES FOR MUCH CONTINUED SUCCESS IN HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

H. 5049 -- Reps. J. Brown, Scott and Byrd: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE MR. WILLIAM LARK FOR BEING ELECTED THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN STATE COMMANDER OF THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIS OTHER OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTS.

H. 5050 -- Rep. Tucker: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AND CONGRATULATING ELECTRIC CITY PRINTING COMPANY OF ANDERSON ON BEING AWARDED THE CONTRACTS TO PRINT COMPETITION NUMBERS FOR THE 1996 OLYMPICS AND FOR THE 1996 ATLANTA PARALYMPIC GAMES.

At 5:50 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. CROMER adjourned in memory of Juanita Garner of Columbia, to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 10:00 A.M.

Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:

O God, Whose blessings are new every day, we are grateful for colleagues and friends who help us on life's way and who, in a small way, we may help. Thank You for those who have given us guidance, counsel and a good example. We praise You for our moments of success which inspire greater endeavors, and even for times of failure which keep us humble and make us remember how much we need God's help. Help us, we pray, to grow stronger, wiser and more charitable. Give us Your aid to shed old faults and to gain new virtues.

Bless with Your abundant loving presence our colleague, Bob Sheheen and others there in the death of Bob's mother; and in a similar way all others in the loss of family members and friends. May all alike feel the comfort of a certain hope in the joyful expectation of eternal life with those they love.

To a holy and all-wise God we make this our morning 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. MARCHBANKS moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Lucile Roukos Sheheen, mother of Rep. SHEHEEN of Camden, which was agreed to.

| Printed Page 3950, May 21 | Printed Page 3970, May 22 |