20110330

Document Sample
20110330 Powered By Docstoc
					                                            NO. 46




                   JOURNAL

                      OF THE


                    SENATE

                      OF THE


      STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA




REGULAR SESSION BEGINNING TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2011

                     _________


            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011
                     Wednesday, March 30, 2011
                        (Statewide Session)

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

  The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood
adjourned, and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.
  A quorum being present, the proceedings were opened with a
devotion by the Chaplain as follows:

The Psalmist asks:
  “How can I repay the Lord for all his goodness to me?”
(Psalm 116:12)
  Please bow in prayer with me:
  O God, we recognize that the Psalmist’s question posed in our text
for today is really a question for all of us. For truly, we are surely a
blessed people here in this State. And even in the face of difficulties
and challenges, we still recognize how great are the gifts You have
bestowed upon us. There is no real way to repay You for Your
goodness to us, dear God--except, Lord, by each Senator in this
Chamber always being honorable, hard-working, and dedicated to
making wise and caring decisions. May it be so, O God. May it be so.
This we pray in Your loving name, dear Lord.
Amen.

  The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of
Grand Juries and such like papers.

                  ADDENDUM TO THE JOURNAL
   The following remarks by Senator McCONNELL were ordered
printed in the Journal of March 15, 2011:

                  Remarks by Senator McCONNELL
  Mr. PRESIDENT and Members of the Senate.
  Senator from Charleston, I am going to start out and try to answer
some of your questions and try to put some plain talk based on
constitutional principle back into this debate. I’m not going to take any
questions until I finish my address.
  I want to go back, and I want to address the amendment that is before
you -- the proposed rule, because it is not exactly the Senate Rule.
They have changed it; and because of the constitutional problems,
that’s why they conveniently, in my opinion, left out the words they left

[SJ]                               1
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

out. But, to the people of South Carolina, this transparency thing
started several years ago. But now, Governor Haley -- who was
Representative Haley at the time -- and I wrote an editorial calling for
more transparency -- more roll call voting -- across the State. That’s
where we were together.
   Where we parted was when she wanted a law instead of doing it by
rule. So, the question becomes, why did we part? Where is that
division? Where is our responsibility here in the Senate to the people
of South Carolina? Where is the responsibility of us to the framers of
our Constitution? Where is our responsibility to our oath of office?
First of all, to the Senator from Charleston, Senator CAMPSEN, you
are dead on the money about the permanency, because it goes back to
the explicit provisions of the South Carolina Constitution. It goes back
to the question of the separation of powers that I thought you so
eloquently addressed in the article entitled, “Preserve Separation of
Powers in S.C.” in the Post and Courier this morning, and I will go
back and start with that. I thought that you capsulated very well the
essential constitutional questions, and it will lead me to why I have to
criticize my friend from Pickens’ amendment, because he very
carefully soft-pedaled the fact that he had removed out of the Judiciary
Committee amendment the language which said the Bill just doesn’t go
into effect until the constitutional amendment passes.
   Now, if you recall, I was told no raffles until we have a constitutional
amendment; but now I am told we can have rule changes without a
constitutional amendment. But the Senator from Charleston said it very
well, and I quote: “Our Constitution mandates that only legislative
rules or the Constitution itself can impose procedural requirements on
one of our legislative chambers. Therefore, the recorded vote statute
must first be enabled by the constitutional amendment” which he says
he has authored. He then goes on, and I quote: “This approach is
necessary to honor our Constitution’s separation of powers provision.”
And, in very eloquent terms, Senator CAMPSEN outlines that history
of our Constitution on the separation of powers.
   There are those that say that the Constitution does not state all that it
says. That reminds me, of course, of the philosophy that the
constitutions somehow can change with time and mean things other
than what they say, and interestingly, that was addressed over a century
and a half ago in this book. It’s a book that I would commend to each
of you not necessarily for all of its accuracy but for its philosophy on
how to look at the Constitution. It’s entitled, “Story on the

[SJ]                                 2
                   WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

Constitution.” This weekend, I had a chance to revisit this book, and
this book contains the exact reasons how the provisions that were put
into the United States Constitution also found their way into the South
Carolina Constitution and why they were put there. They were put
there for specific reasons, and we will go over those reasons this
afternoon. Because those reasons, if you take a strict constructionist
view of a constitution -- and I am referring to Barry Goldwater’s book,
A Conservative Approach to the Constitution -- which I will go to and
quote. “To go forward with this legislation is to ignore the history of
our Constitution, the reasons the framers put it in there, the language
they chose, and also, to ignore the separation of powers in this country
and to take a view…. This is the very view that a lot of members of
our party criticized the other party for in Washington, D.C. on
Obamacare -- “Well, it doesn’t say that you can’t do it in there, so
somehow it is in there -- the power to do it. So we are going to do it.”
   Let us look now at this section of our Constitution and the history of
this Constitution. In doing so, I want to start out first of all with Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall in 1803. He said, “The
Constitution is either a superior paramount law unchangeable by
ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and like
other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the
former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to
the Constitution is not law. If the latter part be true, then written
constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a
power in its own nature illimitable....” It was laid out a century and a
half ago. Today, this Senate, with this amendment, is flirting with
doing what we were warned not to do, and that is to say that we can
somehow circumvent or override the Constitution with a statute.
   Let us go back to the Minutes of the Constitutional Convention and
to the language that came out of there. This particular document is
very interesting. It says the restriction of calls of the Ayes and Nays to
one fifth is founded upon the necessity of preventing too frequent a
recurrence to this mode of ascertaining the votes at the mere caprice of
an individual. A call consumes a great deal of time and often
embarrasses the just progress of beneficial measures. It is said to have
been often used to excess in the Congress under the confederation and
even under the present Constitution, it is notoriously used as an
occasional annoyance by a dissatisfied minority to retard the passage of
measures which are sanctioned by the approbation of a strong majority.
The check, therefore, is not merely theoretical, and experience shows

[SJ]                                  3
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

that it has been resorted to at once to admonish and to control members
and this is an abuse of the public patience and the public indulgence.
The opponents of those of us, Senator from Charleston, who have tried
to stand up to the Constitution, have spread the propaganda story that
we believe that roll call voting is unconstitutional. Nothing could be
further from the truth. In fact, you were the author of the constitutional
amendment. You and I both voted to extend roll call voting in the
Senate, and I might say that the Rules of the Senate require more roll
call voting than this statute we have before us. The statute does not go
as far as the Senate Rules go, but it goes in other places, so the Senate
Rules, number one, being broader and requiring more roll call votes
establishes for the record today whatever comes out of this Bill, that we
already have roll call voting. We have recorded votes and with this
Bill, if it were supreme, would be less roll call voting than this Senate,
by a two-thirds majority, has been willing to impose upon this body.
   That having been said, you must then look at the early writings.
Then you go to the constitutional history of South Carolina, which we
did over the weekend, and started taking a look at the history of our
section. The current provision is traceable to the 1868 Constitution
which is now in effect and then, by looking on back, you will find that
the provisions earlier than that existed from the 1780s forward all the
way, and they mirrored pretty much what was going on at the federal
level. Then, you could go in here and take a look at the exact reasons
for why this was put into effect. But we are told today that the
provisions of the Constitution that were put in there of limitation
limited the power of the General Assembly. Those sections did not
give us the power. They limited the power. The same question came
up in Washington, D. C. I’m trying to remember which one at the
moment -- the U. S. Senate or the U. S. House -- until I find the
reference. Could they, by unanimous consent, change that provision in
the Constitution or suspend it as it applied to that legislative body?
They were told “no.” But today, we are told it doesn’t even take
unanimous consent. You can change it by a majority vote of the
General Assembly -- another departure in our history. Well, how
should we interpret constitutions? How should they be looked at? I, of
course, go back to a gentleman I greatly respected, Senator Barry
Goldwater. He said, and I quote, “The framers of the Constitution had
learned their lesson. They were not only students of history but victims
of it. They knew from vivid personal experience that freedoms depend
on effective restraints against the accumulation of power in a single

[SJ]                                4
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

authority, and that is what the Constitution is -- a system of restraints
against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction
of absolutism,” and he goes into the expansion of absolutism. So, that
having been said, I take my guidance off of Senator Barry Goldwater’s
view of the Constitution.
   Then, I went back over the weekend and also tried to look in this
particular document right here and see what they say about how you
amend constitutions. How should they be viewed? Where and how?
Let me quote a couple of items out of there that I think you will find
interesting: “In the policy of one age may ill suit the wishes of policy of
another age, the Constitution is not the subject to such fluctuations. It
is to have a fixed uniform permanent construction. It should be so far
at least as human affirmity will allow -- not dependent upon the
passions or parties of particular time but the same yesterday, today, and
forever.” And then they provide a method by which you may amend it
-- not by will and wish but a constitutional process for administration.
   I had some research done to find out about a strict constructionist
approach to a Constitution. I was looking for information on (1) the text
of the Constitution, (2) the intent of the framers, and (3) the precedent.
Senator from Charleston, the text of the Constitution is as clear as it can
be. It does not grant to the General Assembly the power to make rules
of procedure by law. Instead, it says “Each House shall determine its
rules of procedure” -- not the General Assembly -- not the House and
the Senate -- each separate. What does it take to understand the plain
black letter words of the Queen’s English? What does it take to
understand that? “Each shall determine its rules” -- not their rules --
“its rules of procedure.” So, on that test, number one, the plain black
letter. Then, on down further it’s in either Section 17 or 22. It
prescribes ten House members or five Senators to guarantee a roll call
vote. That’s what it says, and there’s where the provisions are put in.
   Then, it goes to the intent of the framers. I invite you to go back and
look at the history of our Constitution and the United States
Constitution. It’s very clear. It’s not what today’s politicians are
saying. It’s what they said, and you draw the intent of the framers from
what they said -- not what people on political stumps want to say about
it 150 years later. And then you go to precedent. Where is the
precedent? Well, the precedent has always been that is the case. The
other side of the question is liberal constructions or loose constructions
or whatever you want to call it -- a nonoriginalism approach -- and that
is, you take the broader view. That is to say there are social, political,

[SJ]                                5
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

and economic consequences to natural law of the belief that higher or
more law ought to trump in consistent positive law. So, we’re there
constitutionally.
   Now, the Senator from Pickens proposes an amendment. Let me tell
you first off what it does differently from the Senate Judiciary
Committee amendment, before I go to some of its shortcomings. The
Senate Judiciary Committee said that the statute does not take effect
until the adoption of the constitutional amendment authorizing the law.
Nobody in the Senate on either side of this question opposed the roll
call vote. The division is not over roll call voting. It’s over whether or
not the rule trumps the statute and whether or not the Constitution is
supreme in this debate. To boil it down into other things are attempts
by political propagandists to get their way and to move the public. I
appeal to the public. Those who are standing here have absolutely
nothing to gain by insisting that the Constitution be followed except for
the people of this State -- that the Constitution should not be trampled
upon.
    So, the first thing the amendment proposed by Senator LARRY
MARTIN does is it removes making it an enabling statute and makes it
automatically go into effect upon the signature of the Governor. The
second thing it does, that I notice they were very careful not to tell you
it does, is that the majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee decided
to come down on the side of transparency and to expand the roll call
votes to amendments. They want to take that out. The LARRY
MARTIN amendment takes out roll call voting on amendments. That’s
the second thing it does. The third thing it does is it puts in for the
Senate a new and somewhat different procedure, Senator from
Florence, on budgets. Now, let me tell you why this language got
played with and also why they tampered with the rule on substantive
amendments on third reading. They just said now, if there is any
amendment on third reading, it’s subject to a roll call vote. The Senate
Rule calls for a roll call vote on a substantive amendment, because we
have roll call votes on second reading. Why do I think they avoided the
word “substantive?” -- for the very thing that the Senator from
Charleston, Senator CAMPSEN, hammered on -- separation of powers.
The minute you insert the adjective “substantive” in front of the
amendment in a Code of Laws is the minute you invite lawyers to sue
over whether we followed the procedures accurately and whether the
law was enacted under the law. Part of the major reason that the
framers of our Constitution were very careful not to take procedures in

[SJ]                                6
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

the judiciary, in the executive, and in the legislative branches of
government and start embodiment in the law where they could be
argued about... The court is on almost all of its procedures the sole
judge of its procedures, and it was to prevent the spillover, the
encroachment, of one branch of government on another.
   But, getting back to the LARRY MARTIN amendment, interestingly
-- look at the Senate Rule. Take out your Senate Rule book and look at
what we say about roll calling voting. If you read it, you will find out
that, first of all, we had more roll call voting than is in the Governor’s
Bill or the House Bill or the MARTIN amendment or anything else.
This Senate is a leader in roll call voting and did so with its own rules.
But, prior to third reading, Senator from Florence, of the annual
General Appropriations Bill, each section of Part 1-A with the
corresponding provisos must be considered individually and receive a
roll call vote. Now, let’s go to the proposed amendment that we have.
It’s different. The annual Appropriations Bill must be considered
section by section prior to third reading. Sounds good, doesn’t it? --
just like we are doing it. Of course, if you notice, they dropped out that
language about provisos. They dropped all of that out of there. And,
then they added this language -- “It must receive a recorded roll call
vote by the House of Representatives and the Senate when the pending
question is the adoption of an individual section.” Separate it, read it
and look at it very carefully, Senator from Florence. Does it now mean
that every time on second reading that somebody says, “I move to
adopt the section,” we have got to have a roll call vote in the House and
the Senate? This is fundamentally different from what the Senate Rule
is. The reason that we wanted it section by section on third reading is
because our amending occurs on second reading. It takes a 60% plus
vote in here to get the power of amendment, so it seems the proper
thing to do -- get all of the amendments out of the way and then vote
section by section. I was interested in the answers to the questions
under the way this rule is now constructed by the Senator from Pickens.
Does the vote, section by section, under the way this is worded close
out the section? Can a member move to approve a section? Does it
close out amendments or if it doesn’t, do you have to have another roll
call vote after the amendments? Well, if you put that in the law, maybe
some judge, instead of presiding official, will make those decisions as
to whether or not we have complied with our procedures, because you
have done what the framers set out to stop you from doing and that is to
have courts looking in here on political questions of procedure in this

[SJ]                                7
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

body that are decided by this body. That’s why there were Rules put
in. The House operates differently. I affectionately call it almost a
legislative racetrack over there. It’s a 50% plus one rule in the House,
and in the framers’ minds, it was supposed to be closer to the popular
will. But, a bicameral legislature was set up, because the framers were
so suspicious of the accumulation of power that they were concerned
about a tyranny of the legislature, and it broke the legislature into two
different Houses -- different terms and different methods of election.
Then, they even restricted the powers of the legislature by ensuring that
for instance, we cannot begin a revenue-raising measure over here in
the Senate. Restrictions on procedure constitute mandates -- the issue
for the people of South Carolina in roll call voting again.
   If I say it one time, I will say it 20 times, because I have seen these
press releases going out and the propagandas spreading across South
Carolina as though we have something to hide in here. I am delighted
for roll call voting. We are on TV. This Senate has modernized its
website and reached out based on the critique we got as to how we
could make this body more user-friendly with our website to see what
was going on. But as much as the people want all of that, I don’t
believe particularly in the conservative community across South
Carolina that they want us to now embark upon a new way of looking
at the South Carolina Constitution, and that new way is if the people
want it, pass it. Let a court decide if it’s constitutional or not. Litigate
it. I’m telling you the people that vote in my district or how they feel
about Obamacare, feel like the United States Congress exceeded the
Constitution. But you see, I could go back and give you some quotes
from up there. They are taking a similar attitude like some are now
taking in South Carolina. One of them says, “I don’t worry about this
Constitution on this to be honest.” Another one says, “The federal
government can, yes, do most anything in this country.” You go down
that slippery slope when you abandon the philosophy of strict
construction.      When you begin to embrace the concept that
constitutions contain secrets that the framers had in their heads but just
didn’t put on paper and they are just waiting to be discovered in the
next century by some legal scholar who’s digging in the Constitution
and trying to find some new idea.
   I remember when the Senator from Pickens had his hearings, and a
public interest group came in with an opinion. I later found out the
political leanings of that person who wrote that particular opinion.
They are not my leanings. They contended that, of course, that the

[SJ]                                 8
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

people should know what’s going on. That’s why we changed the
Rules. This Senate, when it gets Rules, looks back on the language we
have. It stays pretty much on that course from Senate to Senate, but
there are Supreme Court decisions -- one that reaffirms this rule
authority, and number two, make it clear that one General Assembly
cannot bind another, but we can, if we amend the Constitution, and
that’s what a group of us in the committee propose to do. Somehow,
enough arguments have been swirled around in Senator LARRY
MARTIN’s head that he now has come to the idea that perhaps, “Well,
if it doesn’t conflict with the Senate Rules, it’s okay.” I saw a president
of a college write an editorial that essentially said, “Well, there’s really
nobody with standing; and as long as the Rules seem to mirror
whatever the statute is, what’s the issue?” The issue may be that this
Senate, for whatever reason, could change its Rules. There’s no
guarantee that any of us will be here. Then the question is the Senate
may decide that it wants to have its roll call votes on the budget on
second reading instead of third, because it moved its amending process
somewhere else. But if we have the power, as the Senator from
Pickens and others seem to think, without a constitutional amendment,
to impose rules of procedure on the House of Representatives, then
members of the Senate, we have the power to prescribe the rules in the
General Assembly -- when we meet in a General Assembly -- how
votes are counted, all sorts of questions -- if they are not covered by the
Constitution. If you follow the philosophy that unless it’s specifically
covered in the Constitution, you can do it. That’s what some argue.
Well, it says one-fifth can, but what prevents a lower amount? Well, I
found out when the United States Senate looked at that question that
you can’t even change the Constitution, Senator from Clarendon, by
unanimous vote or by unanimous consent. We can’t ignore it. Every
one of us in here is bound to apply the Constitution as best we know it.
   So, I join the Senator from Charleston in everything that he has to
say about separation of powers. The vote that we are about to take is
not about whether or not you want roll call voting, because the Senate
Judiciary Committee report puts that in there. In fact, the committee
report is more roll call voting-friendly than the Senator from Pickens’
amendment, because he strikes some of it out. The question is whether
or not the Constitution requires an amendment to put this statute in
place, and even the proponents of this Bill have admitted to you today
that the rule trumps the word of the statute under the present
Constitution. Why do you think they have supported the Constitutional

[SJ]                                 9
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

change? Because they know. This is the political show that is
underway. It’s a political show about finishing up supposedly the issue
of transparency; but to finish it up, we have to do it the right way -- not
in the immediacy of the moment but by the procedure that our
ancestors, the framers of the Constitution, put in place.
   When I look back in this book and start looking at some of the old
writings here, I think you will find some of these interesting. In
Joseph’s story on this book, he says, “The reader must not expect to
find in these pages any novel views and novel constructions,” and he
goes on to say, “I have not the ambition to be the author of any new
plan of interpreting the Constitution or of enlarging its powers by
ingenious subtleties and learned doubts.” -- the expositions to be
regarded not as his opinions but of those of great minds which frame
the Constitution. He goes through the one-fifth vote history, and he
says in “Talking about our American Constitution,” which I believe
holds here, in South Carolina, “on the one hand, a rule of equal
importance is not to enlarge the construction of a given power beyond
the fear terms merely because a restriction is inconvenient in politics or
even mischievous. If it is mischievous, the power of redressing the evil
lies with the people by amendment. It is doing for the people what they
have not chosen to do for themselves.” He goes on. He says,
“Temporary delusions, prejudices, excitements and objects have
irresistible influence in mere questions of policy and convenience.” On
words of construction he quotes from cases back then -- “The words are
to be taken in their natural and obvious sense and not in a sense that is
reasonably restricted or enlarged.” “… As men whose intentions
require no concealment generally employ the words which most
directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the
enlightened patriots, who framed our Constitution and the people who
adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural
sense and to have intended what they say.” It goes on and on. I am not
going to bore you with all of the book, but I wanted this weekend, one
last chance to go back and see if maybe I had just gotten it wrong or
somehow missed the boat somewhere that I had just not gotten it right.
Because politically, it’s very easy to explain, “I’m just voting. I’m
voting for that Bill. I’m voting for the statute.” It’s the easy way out.
The harder way out is to stand up and explain the Constitution and the
fact that you as an elected official are limited by that Constitution. I am
willing to put the question to the voters, but I’m not willing, from my


[SJ]                                10
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

point of view, to take my vote and, in my firm belief, walk on the black
letter of the Constitution.
   Remember, I told you that they conveniently left out the word in our
current Rule. Remember what that was in the Rule? Go back now,
and just think for a minute on this particular issue. In the Senator from
Pickens’ amendment is a Bill or Joint Resolution. As amended, in the
pending question is the passage of a Bill on third reading. The Rule of
the Senate is there is no reason to have another vote unless there has
been a substantive amendment. So, we put that in there just as the
framers warned us about frivolous votes in there taking too much time.
We leave out a comma. We leave out a period. We need to substitute a
word. Under their Bill, we have to go back and have a roll call vote.
Why they didn’t put the word “substantive” in there is because of their
deep-seeded suspicion about their weakness constitutionally -- where
they were -- that the courts, the Judiciary, would have to weigh in on
was it or wasn’t it a substantive amendment. So, they just said, all of it
on third reading; but in their clamor to do that, they left out and added
new language.
   Now, let me tell you why, members of the Senate. What they have
not told you today, and I went back to have a look to see what they
were up to. The House Rules -- go and look at the House Rules. What
they have not told you is that the House requires roll call voting section
by section on the budget -- not on third -- on second. So, I guess the
House can either amend this Bill back to second reading and send it
back to us and the conflict would be on the Senate side or the conflict
would be on the House side, and then the House has set Rule 7.2 -- you
should go take a look at and look at the other conflicts, Senator from
Horry, that start to come up. The reason I address you is because your
newspaper was attempting, in an editorial, to criticize the Senate
Judiciary Committee for not applying roll call voting to amendments
and yet, the very amendment they are trying to kill today is the one that
does expand it to amendments. When you vote for the Senator from
Pickens’ amendment, you vote to take the roll call voting off of the
amendments. You bring in the convoluted language that he has had to
import to try to reconcile the House and Senate Rules. Why? Why
didn’t he just put it all in there? Because deep down, they have a
constitutional problem. Conflict! The rule trumps the statute, and then,
the statute -- if it is governing and is subject to interpretation --
becomes the business of a separate branch of government and is no
longer the ruling in here and a vote of the members. It just should be so

[SJ]                               11
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

obvious to you. The vote we are about to take is not over whether you
are pro or con roll call voting. It is over whether or not you want it
broader, Senator from Lexington. Here is your chance to be a
champion of transparency. It’s a broader interpretation and, the
Senator from Charleston, Senator CAMPSEN, and I defend the
Constitution like he argued in the morning paper, by not letting the
statute go into effect until the people of this State, under the proper
procedure, take the constitutional amendment and adopt it. It’s
empowering the public. It’s doing it the right way. It’s abiding by the
Constitution.
   Now, I respect my friends on the other side. They are just a little bit
more liberal than I am. They have a looser approach to the language of
constitutions. You know, some of us on the pro-life side have
criticized the U. S. Supreme Court, because they adopted that concept
of the penumbra and weighed it in, Senator from Charleston, finding
rights that the framers of the Constitution never put in there. But now,
we are told that there are things in this Constitution we just haven’t
seen and the framers didn’t put in there that we just need to accept. So,
I call it a looser or non-traditional approach. You can call it a liberal
approach. That’s where I see it. I cast my lot with Senator Goldwater.
He’s the guy who inspired me, years ago, to have an interest in politics
and, ultimately, I became a Goldwater Republican, and I have chastised
some in this Senate, Republican and Democrat, who don’t believe, for
instance, that I agree with Senator Goldwater about freedom. That’s
why I believe if you want to buy a raffle ticket -- I mean it’s just
unbelievable to me that the people of this State can’t vote on whether or
not they want to buy a raffle ticket in order to give a charitable
donation.
   I tried to follow the philosophy of the invisible hand. Government
should not act except to protect people from the invisible hand. But
here, the invisible hand is the slippery slope from the high ground of
strict construction of the Constitution to saying, “Well, it might say
that. It might say each House shall determine its rules of procedure” --
not their rules of procedure. All of that may be accurate. The framers
are very specific. I understand the intent in the Constitution all the way
back from the language in the Articles of Confederation coming
forward; and despite all of that evidence -- despite all of that black
letter constitutional law -- people want this statute. So, we’ll give it to
them now instead of with the constitutional amendment that should be
going with this -- that should have gone with it; but you see, that’s what

[SJ]                                12
                   WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

the central issue is here in this amendment, because the Senator from
Pickens is peeling the way -- in the enabling language -- the House of
Representatives sent it over here. I’ve never accused them of being a
citadel of constitutional scholarship over there. On many occasions
I’ve criticized them in the inartful drafting of Bills in the House of
Representatives, but I understand the role they perform, and it’s time to
step back and say, let’s do this thing the right way. I hope the Senate
will adopt the viewpoint I take. I hope I have not offended any of you.
I did not intend to do that. You have your viewpoints and I have mine.
You may think you can read it another way. When you leave the black
letter words, you’re in to interpretation, and the black letter words, that
is what the framers said. Remember what I have said. It’s been carried
from constitution to constitution. The constitutional amendment we
have will create a constitutional right to roll call votes on certain things
the General Assembly puts in statute.
   The constitutional right to a roll call vote is already there when five
Senators require it. It’s already required. No one in this body, that I’m
aware of, on either side has taken the position that roll call votes are
unconstitutional. No one has done that. It’s the method -- how we get
there, and I would simply tell you that in what we are doing, we should
not let the ends justify the means. We are specific. The Constitution is
specific. I wish my friend, the Senator from Richland, were here. I
love to read to him from Barry Goldwater’s books, but I notice I get
him uncomfortable on occasions, so I will not read to him today; but
please think about it and think again about what John Marshall said,
“The Constitution is either a superior paramount law unchangeable by
ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and like
other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the
former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to
the Constitution is not law. If the latter part be true, then written
constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a
power in its own nature illimitable.”
   So, I close again by appealing to you on the basis of the separation of
powers to please think about what you are doing. We’ll put a statement
in the Journal that this vote is not on the question of whether you are
for or against roll call voting. As far as I’m concerned, this is a
question on whether you take the approach that the Constitution says
what it says, or it says something more than what the framers intended
over all of those constitutional conventions, even when, I believe it
was, Governor West’s Commission looked at it. They looked at the

[SJ]                                 13
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

section and carried it over and agreed not to disturb it. But all of a
sudden, we can disturb it -- not by constitutional conventions and not
by amendment, but we’re told now that we can do it by a majority vote.
The argument here apparently is that we have much greater powers
than the framers laid down in the black letter law of the Constitution.
And once you go down the slippery slope, there’s no way back for us.
You cannot pick and choose when it is what it says and when it’s not
what it says, because that always becomes a political discussion. We
appeal on the greater plane to the people of South Carolina. Our
Constitution is solid. It must be adhered to, and there is a method by
which we can amend it. The Senate Judiciary Committee has acted on
a constitutional amendment. It’s prepared to try to go forward. But
this is wrong what we are doing in almost a stampede to the finish line.
We are going to go ahead and put this Bill in and look at the
contortions they’ve had to go through with this language to somehow
make it appear that it does not conflict so as not to get a rub in a court.
Why? Because deep down, they know what I am saying is accurate.
They know the Constitution trumps it. They know what I’m saying is
the black letter law of the Constitution.
   Now, I’ll close by saying that you always can escape that by saying,
“Oh, but it’s subject to interpretation that was framed over a hundred
and something years ago, and things have changed.” Well, the framers
knew that, and they put in there methods for change, and we are
prepared to make that change, but this Senate should not approve this
amendment. I hope you will stick with the Judiciary Committee
amendment which expands it to all amendments but, most importantly,
makes it an enabling statute and says this goes into effect when and if
the people amend the Constitution and it becomes effective, giving the
General Assembly the power by law to do these specific things.
Constitutions are documents of grants of power and limitation. They
are not documents for vivid imaginations and the opportunity to try to
figure out a way a hundred and something years later that the framers
really had that in the backs of their minds. They just didn’t say it. So, I
think the Senator from Charleston made a convincing case. Just as
Barry Goldwater said, “These people weren’t historians whatever.
They were victims of history, and they stopped and put meticulous
safeguards in separation of powers and things, and we now, in a
modern political climate are stampeding in disregard of that. I would
hope that this Senate would perform its role in a bicameral legislature
and say, “Look, House of Representatives, number one, we’ve adopted

[SJ]                                14
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

Rules that are much broader with roll call voting, but if you want to put
it in a statute, let’s do it the right way.” This Senate is not a bastion of
opposition to roll call voting. It’s a friend of it. Its Rules prove it, but
its track record is it’s been a friend of the Constitution, but not always.
I’ve gotten up here and argued about some, and I think the Senator
from Aiken will agree with me. I warned about that blending Bill that
got bobtailed and ended up getting struck down by the court. The
Constitution is very specific -- single subject, but some thought it was
open to interpretation, and we had to be pulled back to reality.
   The Senator from Pickens, Senator LARRY MARTIN, is very
eloquent from the podium and he is very talented at writing. But he
knows when I see him scribbling and moving those words around on
those Rules, that I know what he’s trying to do. He’s trying to tiptoe
around what he knows is the ultimate constitutional trap; and if there is
the slightest conflict in there, he knows somebody could get standing.
He’s got to know that the Rule trumps the statute until the Constitution
is amended. I was told that learned people, Betsy Gray, one of the
leading constitutional lawyers in this State for instance, looked at this
with the Senator from Pickens, and she told him, “The Rule trumps the
statute until [we] amend it.”
   That is where we are. Is that the right way? Is that the way it should
be? It’s what we inherited from the framers. It’s not the Senate at this
point saying it’s the right or wrong way in terms of the policy put in the
Constitution, members of the Senate. It’s what the framers put in. Is it
now your province to say that their words don’t mean what they said
and they mean something else? I submit to you. You have an
opportunity to change that with the constitutional vehicle, but trying to
skirt around it and hope that for two years the Rules comply and there
won’t be a conflict. I will tell you there already is a conflict between
the Senate Rules that we’ve adopted and the very carefully drawn
language of my friend from Pickens, and I compliment him on it. I had
to look very closely to find it, but I did find it.
   Thank you.
                                      ***

                      CO-SPONSORS ADDED
   The following co-sponsors were added to the respective Bills:
S. 78     Sen. Larry Martin
S. 274 Sens. Bright, Bryant and Shoopman
S. 431 Sen. Scott

[SJ]                                15
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

S. 586   Sens. Cromer and Alexander
S. 591   Sen. Setzler

    Status Report Regarding the General Appropriations Bill
  Senator LEATHERMAN, Chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, was recognized to present a status report on the General
Appropriations Bill, H. 3700.

                      Leave of Absence
  On motion of Senator LARRY MARTIN, at 1:45 P.M., Senator
THOMAS was granted a leave of absence for the balance of the day.

                        Leave of Absence
  At 4:30 P.M., Senator CLEARY requested a leave of absence for
Thursday, March 31.

               Expression of Personal Interest
  Senator CLEARY rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.

               Expression of Personal Interest
  Senator MALLOY rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.

                              RECALLED
   S. 692 -- Senators Jackson, Courson, Scott and Lourie: A BILL TO
AMEND SECTION 7-27-405, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE RICHLAND COUNTY
ELECTION COMMISSION AND THE RICHLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF REGISTRATION, SO AS TO COMBINE THE
RICHLAND COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION AND THE
RICHLAND COUNTY BOARD OF REGISTRATION INTO A
SINGLE ENTITY.
   Senator McCONNELL asked unanimous consent to make a motion
to recall the Bill from the Committee on Judiciary.

  The Bill was recalled from the Committee on Judiciary and ordered
placed on the Calendar for consideration tomorrow.

                          RECALLED
  S. 730 -- Senator S. Martin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION
7-27-415 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE

[SJ]                            16
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

SPARTANBURG COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION AND
SPARTANBURG COUNTY BOARD OF REGISTRATION, TO
PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED TO FOUR YEAR
TERMS.
   Senator McCONNELL asked unanimous consent to make a motion
to recall the Bill from the Committee on Judiciary.

  The Bill was recalled from the Committee on Judiciary and ordered
placed on the Calendar for consideration tomorrow.

       INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
  The following were introduced:

   S. 743 -- Senator Pinckney: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO
COMMEMORATE THE TWO HUNDREDTH BIRTHDAY OF
CHARLESTON NATIVE DANIEL ALEXANDER PAYNE,
DISTINGUISHED AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH
TEACHER, PREACHER, AND BISHOP, AND TO DECLARE
APRIL 1, 2011, "BISHOP DANIEL A. PAYNE HOMECOMING OF
AN EXTRAORDINARY EDUCATOR DAY."
l:\council\bills\rm\1147ahb11.docx
   The Senate Resolution was adopted.

  S. 744 -- Senator L. Martin: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 7,
CHAPTER 3, TITLE 16 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-605, SO AS TO
PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO IMPEDE
THE NORMAL BREATHING OR BLOOD CIRCULATION OF
ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT CONSENT BY INTENTIONALLY
APPLYING PRESSURE TO THE OTHER PERSON'S THROAT OR
NECK OR OBSTRUCTING THE OTHER PERSON'S NOSE OR
MOUTH; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-25-65 OF THE CODE OF
LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRIMINAL
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OF A HIGH AND AGGRAVATED
NATURE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO
VIOLATES SECTION 16-25-20(A) OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, IS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF
CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OF A HIGH AND
AGGRAVATED NATURE WHEN THE PERSON COMMITS A
VIOLATION OF SECTION 16-3-605.

[SJ]                            17
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

l:\s-jud\bills\l. martin\jud0093.jjg.docx
   Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

   S. 745 -- Senators Knotts, Campbell, Land and Matthews: A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976,
BY ADDING SECTION 40-9-42 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE SCOPE
OF PRACTICE OF A CERTIFIED ADVANCED PRACTICE
CHIROPRACTIC PHYSICIAN; TO AMEND SECTION 40-9-10,
RELATING TO DEFINITIONS CONCERNING CHIROPRACTORS
AND THE CHIROPRACTIC PROFESSION, SO AS TO DEFINE
CERTAIN TERMS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-9-20,
RELATING TO THE LICENSURE OF CHIROPRACTORS, SO AS
TO PROVIDE A CHIROPRACTOR MAY BECOME CERTIFIED AS
AN ADVANCED PRACTICE CHIROPRACTIC PHYSICIAN UPON
THE SATISFACTION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
l:\council\bills\agm\18948ab11.docx
   Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Medical
Affairs.

  S. 746 -- Senators Lourie, Hutto, Fair, L. Martin and Rose: A BILL
TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-286, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS
OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SUSPENSION
OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF
TWENTY-ONE FOR HAVING AN UNLAWFUL ALCOHOL
CONCENTRATION, SO AS TO REVISE THE PENALTIES TO
INCLUDE REQUIRING AN OFFENDER WHO OPERATES A
VEHICLE TO HAVE AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE
INSTALLED ON THE VEHICLE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-400,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SUSPENSION OF A
LICENSE, A LICENSE RENEWAL OR ITS RETURN, AND
ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE THAT RESTRICTS THE DRIVER TO
ONLY OPERATING A VEHICLE WITH AN IGNITION
INTERLOCK DEVICE INSTALLED, SO AS TO REVISE THE
DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION PERIOD FOR A PERSON
WHO CHOOSES TO OR NOT TO HAVE AN INTERLOCK
DEVICE INSTALLED ON HIS VEHICLE, TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO
CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE AN INTERLOCK DEVISE INSTALLED
ON THEIR VEHICLES AFTER BEING CONVICTED OF CERTAIN
DRIVING OFFENSES, AND TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE FOR

[SJ]                              18
            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

A PERSON TO OBTAIN A LICENSE WHO DOES NOT OWN A
VEHICLE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-1320, RELATING TO THE
ISSUANCE OF A PROVISIONAL DRIVER'S LICENSE, SO AS TO
PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONAL LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED
AS LONG AS THE VEHICLE AUTHORIZED TO BE OPERATED
HAS HAD AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVISE INSTALLED; TO
AMEND SECTION 56-5-2941, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED FOR DRIVING A
VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR
DRUGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THE LENGTH OF TIME AN
INTERLOCK DEVICE MUST BE AFFIXED TO A VEHICLE FOR
A FIRST OFFENSE, TO REVISE THE PENALTY FOR AN
OFFENDER WHO HAS ACCUMULATED FOUR POINTS UNDER
THE INTERLOCK DEVICE POINT SYSTEM, TO PROVIDE FOR
THE USE OF FUNDS REMITTED TO THE INTERLOCK DEVICE
FUND, TO REVISE THE FEES THAT MUST BE COLLECTED
AND REMITTED TO THE INTERLOCK DEVICE FUND, TO
REVISE THE FREQUENCY OF TIME IN WHICH AN OFFENDER
MUST HAVE AN INTERLOCK DEVICE INSPECTED, AND TO
PROVIDE THAT AN INTERLOCK DEVICE MUST CAPTURE A
PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGE OF A DRIVER AS HE OPERATES THE
DEVICE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2942, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO THE IMMOBILIZATION OF A PERSON'S
VEHICLE UPON HIS CONVICTION OF AN ALCOHOL-RELATED
DRIVING OFFENSE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AS LONG AS A
PERSON HOLDS A VALID IGNITION INTERLOCK LICENSE, HE
IS NOT REQUIRED TO SURRENDER HIS LICENSE PLATES
AND VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-
2947, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OFFENSE OF CHILD
ENDANGERMENT, SO AS TO REVISE THE DATE WHEN A
PERSON MAY ENROLL IN AN ALCOHOL AND DRUG SAFETY
ACTION PROGRAM AND BE ISSUED A PROVISIONAL
DRIVER'S LICENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2950, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO A PERSON WHO OPERATES A
MOTOR VEHICLE GIVING IMPLIED CONSENT TO CHEMICAL
TESTS TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF ALCOHOL OR
DRUGS, SO AS TO REVISE THE PENALTY IMPOSED UPON A
PERSON WHO REFUSES TO BE SUBJECTED TO A CHEMICAL
TEST; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2951, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO THE SUSPENSION OF A PERSON'S DRIVER'S

[SJ]                    19
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

LICENSE WHO REFUSES TO SUBMIT TO BE TESTED TO
DETERMINE HIS ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION, SO AS TO
LOWER THE ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION LEVEL THAT
RESULTS IN A PERSON HAVING HIS LICENSE SUSPENDED,
TO REVISE THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT A TEMPORARY
ALCOHOL LICENSE REMAINS IN EFFECT, TO REVISE THE
PERIOD OF TIME THAT A SUSPENSION OF A PERSON'S
PRIVILEGE TO OPERATE A VEHICLE MUST REMAIN IN
EFFECT WHEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE UPHOLDS A
SUSPENSION, TO PROVIDE THAT A HOLDER OF A
RESTRICTED DRIVER'S LICENSE MAY OPERATE ONLY A
VEHICLE EQUIPPED WITH AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE,
AND TO REVISE THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS OF
VARIOUS DRIVING OFFENSES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-
5-2990, RELATING TO THE SUSPENSION OF A PERSON'S
DRIVER'S LICENSE FOR A VIOLATION OF CERTAIN
ALCOHOL AND DRUG RELATED DRIVING OFFENSES, SO AS
TO REVISE THE PENALTIES, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS
PROVISION APPLIES TO CERTAIN PERSONS WHO HAVE
BEEN ISSUED AN IGNITION INTERLOCK RESTRICTED
LICENSE.
l:\council\bills\swb\5152cm11.docx
   Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Transportation.

   S. 747 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKFORCE,
RELATING TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
(ARTICLE 1), DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT
NUMBER 4169, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE
1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
l:\council\bills\dbs\31018ac11.docx
   Read the first time and ordered placed on the Calendar without
reference.

  S. 748 -- Judiciary Committee: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF
PROCEDURE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW COURT, AS PROMULGATED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW COURT AND SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

[SJ]                              20
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1-23-650 OF
THE 1976 CODE AND SECTION 4A, ARTICLE V OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE.
l:\council\bills\dka\3564sd11.docx
   The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and ordered placed on the
Calendar without reference.

   S. 749 -- Judiciary Committee: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO RULE 219 OF THE
SOUTH CAROLINA APPELLATE COURT RULES, AS
PROMULGATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME
COURT AND SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4A, ARTICLE V
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE.
l:\council\bills\dka\3560sd11.docx
   The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and ordered placed on the
Calendar without reference.

   S. 750 -- Judiciary Committee: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO RULE 29 OF THE SOUTH
CAROLINA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AS
PROMULGATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME
COURT AND SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4A, ARTICLE V
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE.
l:\council\bills\dka\3563sd11.docx
   The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and ordered placed on the
Calendar without reference.

   S. 751 -- Judiciary Committee: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO RULES 16, 26, 28, 33, 34,
37, AND 45 OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, AS PROMULGATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA
SUPREME COURT AND SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4A,
ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE.
l:\council\bills\dka\3561sd11.docx
   The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and ordered placed on the
Calendar without reference.


[SJ]                             21
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

   S. 752 -- Judiciary Committee: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3 OF THE SOUTH
CAROLINA           RULES      OF    CIVIL     PROCEDURE,          AS
PROMULGATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME
COURT AND SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4A, ARTICLE V
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE.
l:\council\bills\dka\3562sd11.docx
   The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and ordered placed on the
Calendar without reference.

   S. 753 -- Judiciary Committee: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4 AND RULE 10
OF THE OFFICE OF MOTOR VEHICLE HEARINGS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, AS PROMULGATED BY THE
CHIEF JUDGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT AND
SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PURSUANT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1-23-660 OF THE 1976 CODE
AND SECTION 4A, ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THIS STATE.
l:\council\bills\dka\3565sd11.docx
   The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and ordered placed on the
Calendar without reference.

   S. 754 -- Senators Scott, Alexander, Anderson, Bright, Bryant,
Campbell, Campsen, Cleary, Coleman, Courson, Cromer, Davis,
Elliott, Fair, Ford, Grooms, Hayes, Hutto, Jackson, Knotts, Land,
Leatherman, Leventis, Lourie, Malloy, L. Martin, S. Martin, Massey,
Matthews, McConnell, McGill, Nicholson, O'Dell, Peeler, Pinckney,
Rankin, Reese, Rose, Ryberg, Setzler, Sheheen, Shoopman, Thomas,
Verdin and Williams:        A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO
RECOGNIZE AND HONOR MAJOR GENERAL OSBORNE
EUGENE POWELL, JR., AND TO COMMEND HIM FOR HIS
OUTSTANDING SERVICE, HIS TIRELESS EFFORTS, AND HIS
SELFLESS COMMITMENT OF TIME AND RESOURCES FOR
THE GREAT BENEFIT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA MILITARY
DEPARTMENT.
l:\council\bills\gm\24736ab11.docx
   The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.


[SJ]                             22
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

   S. 755 -- Senators Scott, Alexander, Anderson, Bright, Bryant,
Campbell, Campsen, Cleary, Coleman, Courson, Cromer, Davis,
Elliott, Fair, Ford, Grooms, Hayes, Hutto, Jackson, Knotts, Land,
Leatherman, Leventis, Lourie, Malloy, L. Martin, S. Martin, Massey,
Matthews, McConnell, McGill, Nicholson, O'Dell, Peeler, Pinckney,
Rankin, Reese, Rose, Ryberg, Setzler, Sheheen, Shoopman, Thomas,
Verdin and Williams:        A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO
RECOGNIZE AND HONOR JOHN A. SHULER, DEPUTY
ADJUTANT GENERAL FOR STATE OPERATIONS OF THE
OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, AND TO
CONGRATULATE HIM, UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS
RETIREMENT FROM THE MILITARY DEPARTMENT OF
SOUTH CAROLINA.
l:\council\bills\gm\24737ab11.docx
   The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

   S. 756 -- Senators Knotts, Coleman, Cromer, Elliott, Ford,
McConnell, Land, Rose and Campsen: A BILL TO AMEND THE
CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING
SECTION 6-1-180 SO AS TO REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNING
BODIES TO ASSESS AND COLLECT BUSINESS LICENSE FEES
ANNUALLY ON A CALENDAR YEAR BASIS.
l:\council\bills\ggs\22068zw11.docx
   Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

  H. 3496 -- Reps. Brady, Butler Garrick, Spires, Erickson and Long:
A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-29-135, CODE OF LAWS OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONFIDENTIALITY
OF SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE RECORDS, SO AS TO
DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO NOTIFY THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT AND SCHOOL NURSE
IF A MINOR IS ATTENDING A SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT AND
HAS ACQUIRED IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME OR IS
INFECTED WITH THE HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS;
AND BY ADDING SECTION 59-10-220 SO AS TO REQUIRE
EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ADOPT THE CENTERS FOR
DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION RECOMMENDATIONS
ON UNIVERSAL PRECAUTIONS FOR BLOODBORNE DISEASE
EXPOSURE.

[SJ]                            23
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

  Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Medical
Affairs.

   H. 3985 -- Reps. Rutherford, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Allison,
Anderson, Anthony, Atwater, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield,
Battle, Bedingfield, Bikas, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady,
Branham, Brannon, Brantley, G. A. Brown, H. B. Brown, R. L. Brown,
Butler Garrick, Chumley, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cole,
Cooper, Corbin, Crawford, Crosby, Daning, Delleney, Dillard, Edge,
Erickson, Forrester, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Gilliard, Govan,
Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Hayes, Hearn,
Henderson, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hixon, Hodges, Horne, Hosey,
Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, King, Knight, Limehouse, Loftis, Long,
Lowe, Lucas, Mack, McCoy, McEachern, McLeod, Merrill, Mitchell,
D. C. Moss, V. S. Moss, Munnerlyn, Murphy, Nanney, J. H. Neal, J.
M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parker, Parks, Patrick, Pinson,
Pitts, Pope, Quinn, Ryan, Sabb, Sandifer, Sellers, Simrill, Skelton, G.
M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, Sottile, Spires,
Stavrinakis, Stringer, Tallon, Taylor, Thayer, Toole, Tribble, Umphlett,
Vick, Viers, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Willis and
Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE
AUTHOR ASHLYE V. RUMPH-GEDDIS OF RICHLAND COUNTY
ON THE PUBLICATION OF HER NEW CHILDREN'S BOOK,
TORI EXPLORES SOUTH CAROLINA, AND ON ITS SELECTION
AS THE CITY OF COLUMBIA'S TOGETHER WE CAN READ
BOOK OF THE YEAR.
   The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the
House.

           REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES
                        Invitations Accepted
  The following invitations were polled favorably from the Invitations
Committee and the members voting as follows:

                  Poll of the Invitations Committee
              Polled 10; Ayes 10; Nays 0; Not Voting 0

                              AYES
Alexander               Campsen                  Cromer
Elliott                 Ford                     Knotts

[SJ]                              24
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

Malloy                 O’Dell                  Reese
Verdin

                             Total-- 11

                                NAYS

                              Total-- 0

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - 6:30p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
Members of the Senate, Reception, Americraft Cantey Building, SC
Fairgrounds, by the CITADEL ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Members of the Senate and Staff, Room 112 of the Blatt Building, by
the SC DENTAL ASSOCIATION

Thursday, April 7, 2011- 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Members of the Senate, Breakfast, Room 112 of the Blatt Building, by
the SC GOVERNOR’S SCHOOL FOR SCIENCE AND
MATHEMATICS FOUNDATION

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Members of the Senate, Reception, Clarion Town House Hotel, by the
SC Association of muncipal power systems

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Members of the Senate, Reception, Capital City Club, by the
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Members of the Senate, Breakfast, Room 112, Blatt Building, by the
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS - SC CHAPTER

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 11:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Members of the Senate and Staff, “Taste of South Carolina”, State
House Grounds, by the SC HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.


[SJ]                             25
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

Members of the Senate, Reception, Clarion Town House Hotel, by the
SC JUNIOR GOLF FOUNDATION

Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Members of the Senate, Breakfast, Room 112 of the Blatt Building, by
the PALMETTO AGRIBUSINESS COUNCIL

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 - 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Members of the Senate, Reception, Columbia Metropolitan Convention
Center, by the SC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 - 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Members of the Senate and Staff, Reception, Columbia Museum of Art,
by the FLORENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PARTNERSHIP, FLORENCE COUNTY PROGRESS, GREATER
FLORENCE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, FLORENCE COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF FLORENCE

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Members of the Senate and Staff, Breakfast, Room 112, Blatt Building,
by the FOUNDATION FOR THE SC COMMISSION FOR THE
BLIND

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Members of the Senate and Staff, “Jasper County on the Move”
Luncheon,   State House Grounds, by the JASPER COUNTY
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Members of the Senate and Staff, Reception, 1114 College Street, by
the SC BEER WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION

Thursday, April 28, 2011 - 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Members of the Senate and Staff, Breakfast, Room 112, Blatt Building,
by the SC STATE CHAPTERS OF ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY,
INC.

  Senator HUTTO from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a
favorable with amendment report on:


[SJ]                             26
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

  S. 30 -- Senators McConnell, Leventis and Ford: A BILL TO
AMEND SECTION 22-5-110, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, RELATED TO MAGISTRATES’ POWERS AND
DUTIES REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF ARREST WARRANTS
AND COURTESY SUMMONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO
ARREST WARRANT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR THE ARREST OF
A PERSON UNLESS SOUGHT BY A MEMBER OF A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; AND TO PROVIDE THAT IF AN ARREST
WARRANT IS SOUGHT BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, THE COURT MUST ISSUE A
COURTESY SUMMONS, EXCEPT WHEN A BUSINESS IS
SEEKING AN ARREST WARRANT FOR ANY OFFENSE
AGAINST THE BUSINESS OR A PERSON IS SEEKING AN
ARREST WARRANT FOR A FRAUDULENT CHECK, IF THE
FRAUDULENT CHECK IS PRESENTED TO THE MAGISTRATE
AT THE TIME THE WARRANT IS SOUGHT.
  Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

  Senator HUTTO from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a
favorable report on:
  S. 53 -- Senators L. Martin, Leventis and Ford: A BILL TO
AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 16 OF THE 1976 CODE, BY ADDING
ARTICLE 19 TO ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF PERMANENT AND EMERGENCY CIVIL
NO-CONTACT ORDERS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES,
TO PROVIDE FOR THE DURATION OF CIVIL NO-CONTACT
ORDERS, TO PROVIDE NECESSARY DEFINITIONS, TO
PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION OF CIVIL
NO-CONTACT ORDERS.
  Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

   Senator LEATHERMAN from the Committee on Finance submitted
a favorable report on:
   S. 211 -- Senators Matthews, Land, Leatherman, Leventis, Hutto and
Williams: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 54 TO TITLE 11 SO AS
TO ESTABLISH THE “I-95 CORRIDOR AUTHORITY ACT” AND
TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPOSITION, DUTIES, AND POWERS
OF THE AUTHORITY.

[SJ]                             27
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

  Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

  Senator FAIR from the Committee on Corrections and Penology
polled out S. 385 favorable with amendment:
  S. 385 -- Senators Fair, Rose, Campsen and Peeler: A BILL TO
AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 24, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, SO AS TO DEVOLVE ITS DUTIES, FUNCTIONS,
AND RESPONSIBILITIES UPON THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS; AND TO
AMEND CHAPTER 21, TITLE 24, RELATING TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON
SERVICES, SO AS TO DEVOLVE ITS DUTIES, FUNCTIONS,
AND RESPONSIBILITIES UPON THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS.

           Poll of the Corrections and Penology Committee
               Polled 14; Ayes 14; Nays 0; Not Voting 2

                               AYES
Fair                        Thomas                   Ford
Ryberg                      Anderson                 Williams
Campbell                    Massey                   Campsen
Coleman                     Martin, Shane            Rose
Scott                       Shoopman

                             Total--14

                              NAYS

                              Total--0

                          NOT VOTING
Pinckney                   Nicholson

                              Total--2

  Ordered for consideration tomorrow.



[SJ]                            28
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

   Senator LEATHERMAN from the Committee on Finance submitted
a favorable with amendment report on:
   S. 435 -- Senator Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF
LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION
6-1-180 SO AS TO REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITIES, AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, OR INDIVIDUALS
THAT RECEIVE, COLLECT, OR SPEND PUBLIC FUNDS
DERIVED FROM STATE OR LOCAL TAX REVENUE TO FILE
PERIODIC EXPENDITURE REPORTS WITH THE STATE OR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OR AGENCY THAT
PROVIDED, COLLECTED OR SPENT THE PUBLIC FUNDS.
   Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

  Senator from the Committee on Finance submitted a favorable
report on:
  S. 591 -- Senators Peeler, Ryberg, Bryant, Massey, Rose and Setzler:
A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-3765, SO AS TO
ALLOW A STATE TAX CREDIT FOR EMPLOYERS HIRING AN
UNEMPLOYED INDIVIDUAL RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION BENEFITS, TO PROVIDE THE AMOUNT OF
THE CREDIT, THOSE TAXES AGAINST WHICH THE CREDIT IS
ALLOWED, AND THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
CREDITABLE EMPLOYEES, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CREDIT, AND TO PROVIDE THAT
THE CREDIT IS ALLOWED FOR ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS
HIRED AFTER JUNE 30, 2011, AND BEFORE JULY 1, 2013, AND
EXTENDS FOR TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS FOR EACH
CREDITABLE EMPLOYEE.
  Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

  Senator LEATHERMAN from the Committee on Finance submitted
a majority favorable with amendment and Senator LEVENTIS a
minority unfavorable report on:
  S. 647 -- Senators Campbell, Peeler, Bryant, Elliott, Grooms, Davis,
Campsen, Rose, Hayes, Coleman and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND
THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING
SECTION 12-37-3135 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN A
PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS
THEREON PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO PROPERTY TAX

[SJ]                             29
              WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

UNDERGOES AN ASSESSABLE TRANSFER OF INTEREST AND
THE VALUE OF THE PARCEL AS DETERMINED AT THE TIME
OF THE ASSESSABLE TRANSFER OF INTEREST IS GREATER
THAN THE VALUE OF THE PARCEL USED IN THE PROPERTY
TAX ASSESSMENT ON THE PARCEL FOR THE MOST
RECENTLY COMPLETED PROPERTY TAX YEAR, THERE IS
ALLOWED AN EXEMPTION OF AN AMOUNT OF THE FAIR
MARKET VALUE OF THE PARCEL SUFFICIENT TO
ELIMINATE ANY INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF THE PARCEL;
TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-3140, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE, SO AS TO MAKE A
CONFORMING CHANGE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-60-30,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN THE REVENUE
PROCEDURES ACT, SO AS TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF
PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT.
  Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

   Senator LEATHERMAN from the Committee on Finance submitted
a favorable report on:
   S. 690 -- Senator Leatherman: A BILL TO REENACT SECTION
12-6-60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976,
RELATING TO DETERMINATIONS FOR INCOME TAX AND
CORPORATE LICENSE FEE PURPOSES.
   Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

  Senator RYBERG from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and
Industry submitted a favorable with amendment report on:
  S. 693 -- Senator Bryant: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-9-70
OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATION TO ORDER AND APPEALS
FROM A STATE FIRE MARSHAL, TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT
OF TIME THAT AN OCCUPANT OR OWNER MAY APPEAL THE
DECISION OF A DEPUTY OR RESIDENT FIRE MARSHAL FROM
TWENTY-FOUR HOURS TO FOURTEEN DAYS, AND TO
PROVIDE THAT THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL’S DECISION
MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN DAYS OF RECEIVING THE
NOTICE OF APPEAL.
  Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

  Senator RYBERG from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and
Industry submitted a favorable report on:

[SJ]                         30
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

  S. 694 -- Senator Bryant: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION
41-15-520 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO REMEDIES FOR
EMPLOYEES CHARGING DISCRIMINATION, TO PROVIDE FOR
REFERRAL TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR ALLEGATIONS MADE BY A PRIVATE SECTOR
EMPLOYEE OF A VIOLATION OF SECTION 41-15-510 AND TO
PROVIDE FOR CIVIL REMEDIES.
  Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

                        Appointments Reported
   Senator CROMER from the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry
submitted a favorable report on:
                       Statewide Appointments
   Initial Appointment, Governing Board of Department of Natural
Resources, with the term to commence July 1, 2010, and to expire July
1, 2014
   At-Large:
   Cary L. Chastain, 180 Mary Ellen Drive, Charleston, SC 29403
VICE Michael G. McShane
   Received as information.

   Initial Appointment, Governing Board of Department of Natural
Resources, with the term to commence July 1, 2010, and to expire July
1, 2014
   2nd Congressional District:
   Michael E. Hutchins, 617 Two Notch Road, Lexington, SC 29073
VICE Michael Campbell
   Received as information.

   Initial Appointment, Governing Board of Department of Natural
Resources, with the term to commence July 1, 2010, and to expire July
1, 2014
   5th Congressional District:
   Randy Lowe, 1111 W. Carolina Ave., Hartsville, SC 29550 VICE
Frank Murray, Jr.
   Received as information.




[SJ]                             31
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

   Reappointment, Governing Board of Department of Natural
Resources, with the term to commence July 1, 2010, and to expire July
1, 2014
   1st Congressional District:
   Caroline Rhodes, 7 Guerard Road, Charleston, SC 29407
   Received as information.

   Initial Appointment, Governing Board of Department of Natural
Resources, with the term to commence July 1, 2010, and to expire July
1, 2014
   3rd Congressional District:
   Larry L. Yonce, 1302 Calhoun Street, Johnston, SC 29832 VICE
Stephen Davis
   Received as information.

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE
UNCONTESTED LOCAL AND STATEWIDE CALENDAR.

          ORDERED ENROLLED FOR RATIFICATION
  The following Joint Resolution was read the third time and, having
received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be
changed to that of an Act and enrolled for Ratification:

  H. 3303 -- Reps. J.E. Smith, Harrison, Pinson, Vick, Agnew,
Williams, Alexander, Allen, Allison, Anderson, Anthony, Atwater,
Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bikas,
Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brannon, Brantley,
G.A. Brown, H.B. Brown, R.L. Brown, Butler Garrick, Chumley,
Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cole, Cooper, Corbin, Crawford,
Crosby, Daning, Delleney, Dillard, Edge, Erickson, Forrester, Frye,
Funderburk, Gambrell, Gilliard, Govan, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell,
Hart, Hayes, Hearn, Henderson, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hixon, Hodges,
Horne, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, King, Knight, Limehouse,
Loftis, Long, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, McCoy, McEachern, McLeod,
Merrill, Mitchell, D.C. Moss, V.S. Moss, Munnerlyn, Murphy, Nanney,
J.H. Neal, J.M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parker, Parks,
Patrick, Pitts, Pope, Quinn, Rutherford, Ryan, Sabb, Sandifer, Sellers,
Simrill, Skelton, G.M. Smith, G.R. Smith, J.R. Smith, Sottile, Spires,
Stavrinakis, Stringer, Tallon, Taylor, Thayer, Toole, Tribble, Umphlett,
Viers, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Willis and Young: A JOINT

[SJ]                              32
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

RESOLUTION TO PROMOTE MAJOR GENERAL STANHOPE S.
SPEARS TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL OF THE
SOUTH CAROLINA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 11, 2011.

                    HOUSE BILLS RETURNED
   The following House Bills were read the third time and ordered
returned to the House with amendments:

  H. 3374 -- Reps. Hixon, D.C. Moss, Frye, Ott, J.R. Smith, Atwater,
Tallon, Brannon, Thayer, McCoy, Corbin, Crosby, Murphy, V.S. Moss,
Pinson, G.R. Smith, Chumley, Butler Garrick, Clemmons, Clyburn,
Govan, Hardwick, Munnerlyn, Pitts, Pope, Ryan, Taylor, Young, Vick
and Hodges: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 12 TO TITLE
50 SO AS TO ENACT THE “INTERSTATE WILDLIFE VIOLATOR
COMPACT”, TO PROVIDE THAT THE GOVERNOR SHALL
EXECUTE THE COMPACT WITH OTHER COMPACT STATES,
AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SHALL
APPOINT THE COMPACT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THIS STATE.

                        H. 3374--Recorded Vote
  Senator SHANE MARTIN desired to be recorded as voting against
the third reading of the Bill.

  H. 3625 -- Reps. J.R. Smith, Hixon and Taylor: A BILL TO
AMEND SECTION 8-13-735, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROHIBITION AGAINST A
PERSON, WHO AT THE SAME TIME SERVES ON THE
GOVERNING BODY OF A STATE OR LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION BOARD OR COMMISSION AND AS AN
EMPLOYEE OF THE SAME BOARD OR COMMISSION OR IN A
POSITION WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE
BOARD OR COMMISSION, MAKING OR PARTICIPATING IN A
DECISION AFFECTING HIS ECONOMIC INTERESTS, SO AS TO
PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM SERVING IN BOTH POSITIONS AT
THE SAME TIME.



[SJ]                            33
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

                    THIRD READING BILLS
  The following Bills were read the third time and ordered sent to the
House of Representatives:

  S. 36 -- Senators McConnell, McGill, Setzler and Ford: A BILL TO
AMEND ACT 99 OF 2007, RELATING TO THE SALES TAX
EXEMPTION FOR DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND
SUPPLIES, BY REPEALING SECTIONS 1B AND 1C, WHICH
STATE THAT THE SALES TAX RATE ON DURABLE MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT IS FIVE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT SUBJECT TO
FURTHER REDUCTION BASED ON GENERAL FUND REVENUE
GROWTH.
                              Recorded Vote
  Senators DAVIS and BRIGHT desired to be recorded as voting
against the third reading of the Bill.

       S. 36--Statement by Senators BRYANT and CROMER
  Pursuant to Section 8-13-700(B), which prohibits us from
participating in a decision in which we have an economic interest, we
abstained from voting on this matter because we are Durable Medical
Equipment providers.

  S. 336 -- Senator Grooms: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-7-30
OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO GENERATING UNIFORM
TRAFFIC CITATIONS WITH AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE, TO
REQUIRE THAT A COPY OF THE CITATION IS HANDED
DIRECTLY TO THE OFFENDER BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER ISSUING THE TICKET; TO AMEND CHAPTER 7,
TITLE 56, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC TICKETS,
BY ADDING SECTION 56-7-35 TO PROVIDE THAT A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MUST STOP AN OWNER OR
OPERATOR OF A VEHICLE TO ISSUE A TRAFFIC TICKET, TO
PROVIDE THAT THE TRAFFIC TICKET MUST BE HANDED
DIRECTLY TO THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE VEHICLE,
TO PROVIDE THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
NOT MAIL OR OTHERWISE SEND A TRAFFIC TICKET TO AN
OFFENDER, TO PROVIDE THAT A TRAFFIC TICKET CANNOT
BE ISSUED BASED IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON
PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
CAMERA OR OTHER DEVICE CAPTURING THE IMAGE WAS

[SJ]                             34
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

ATTENDED OR UNATTENDED, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO TOLL
COLLECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-710, RELATING TO
THE POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONCERNING
TRAFFIC LAWS, TO PROVIDE THAT A TRAFFIC TICKET
CANNOT BE ISSUED BASED IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON
PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
CAMERA OR OTHER DEVICE CAPTURING THE IMAGE WAS
ATTENDED OR UNATTENDED; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-70,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CERTAIN VEHICLE
REQUIREMENTS BEING SUSPENDED DURING A STATE OF
EMERGENCY, TO CLARIFY THAT UNIFORM TRAFFIC
CITATIONS MAY NOT BE ISSUED IN WHOLE OR IN PART ON
PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
CAMERA OR OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICE CAPTURING THE
PHOTOGRAPHIC       EVIDENCE          WAS ATTENDED OR
UNATTENDED AT THE TIME IT CAPTURED THE
PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE; AND TO DISGORGE ANY FINES
COLLECTED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 56-5-70.
  Senator SHEHEEN spoke on the Bill.

                    READ THE SECOND TIME
  H. 3399 -- Reps. Rutherford and Owens: A BILL TO AMEND
JOINT RESOLUTION 263 OF 1998 RELATING TO THE
GRANTING OF CONCURRENT FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
JURISDICTION OVER THE NATIONAL ADVOCACY CENTER
LOCATED ON THE COLUMBIA CAMPUS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN RICHLAND COUNTY, SO AS TO
EXTEND THAT CONCURRENT FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO
ADJACENT FEDERALLY OCCUPIED PROPERTY AND TO THE
INN AT USC AND THE KIRKLAND APARTMENT BUILDING
LOCATED RESPECTIVELY AT 1619 PENDLETON STREET AND
1611 PENDLETON STREET IN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA,
SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO DESIGNATE THE TEXT OF JOINT
RESOLUTION 263 OF 1998, AS AMENDED BY THIS ACT, AS
SECTION 3-3-350 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976.
  The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question
being the second reading of the Bill.


[SJ]                            35
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

   The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as
follows:
                        Ayes 29; Nays 1

                                AYES
Alexander               Bryant                  Campsen
Cleary                  Coleman                 Cromer
Fair                    Grooms                  Hayes
Hutto                   Jackson                 Knotts
Lourie                  Malloy                  Martin, Larry
Martin, Shane           Massey                  McConnell
McGill                  O'Dell                  Peeler
Rankin                  Rose                    Ryberg
Scott                   Setzler                 Sheheen
Shoopman                Williams

                              Total--29

                                NAYS
Bright

                               Total--1

            H. 3399--Statement by Senator COURSON
  Had I been present in the Chamber at the time the vote was taken, I
would have voted in favor of the second reading of the Bill.

  The Bill was read the second time and ordered placed on the third
reading Calendar.

                  READ THE SECOND TIME
  S. 568 -- Senator L. Martin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION
16-3-740, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TESTING OF CERTAIN
OFFENDERS        FOR     HEPATITIS    B   AND   HUMAN
IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS (HIV), SO AS TO FURTHER
CLARIFY OFFENDERS WHO MUST BE TESTED AND THE TIME
FRAME THAT TESTING MUST BE CONDUCTED AND PROVIDE
FOR FOLLOW-UP TESTING FOR HIV WHEN MEDICALLY
APPROPRIATE.

[SJ]                              36
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

  The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question
being the second reading of the Bill.

   The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as
follows:
                         Ayes 39; Nays 0

                              AYES
Alexander             Anderson               Bright
Bryant                Campbell               Campsen
Cleary                Coleman                Courson
Cromer                Davis                  Fair
Ford                  Grooms                 Hayes
Hutto                 Knotts                 Leatherman
Lourie                Malloy                 Martin, Larry
Martin, Shane         Massey                 Matthews
McConnell             McGill                 Nicholson
O'Dell                Peeler                 Rankin
Reese                 Rose                   Ryberg
Scott                 Setzler                Sheheen
Shoopman              Verdin                 Williams

                            Total--39

                              NAYS

                             Total--0

  The Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third
reading.

                    READ THE SECOND TIME
  S. 721 -- Senator Massey: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 955 OF 1974,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE
EDGEFIELD COUNTY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, TO PROVIDE THAT THE TRUSTEES SHALL
RECEIVE COMPENSATION AGREED UPON BY THE BOARD.
  The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question
being the second reading of the Bill.


[SJ]                            37
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

   The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as
follows:
                        Ayes 1; Nays 0

                               AYES
Massey

                              Total--1

                               NAYS

                              Total--0

  The Bill was read the second time and ordered placed on the third
reading Calendar.

                   SECOND READING FAILED
               REMOVED FROM THE CALENDAR
  H. 3287 -- Reps. Hardwick and Hodges: A BILL TO AMEND
SECTION 50-21-190, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
1976, RELATING TO THE ABANDONMENT OF WATERCRAFT
AND OUTBOARD MOTORS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN
ABANDONED WATERCRAFT MAY BE REMOVED AND
DISPOSED OF BY ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT HAS
JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA WHERE THE ABANDONED
WATERCRAFT IS LOCATED, AND TO PROVIDE THAT A
WATERCRAFT ABANDONED FOR AT LEAST NINETY DAYS
MAY BE CLAIMED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY AS
ABANDONED PROPERTY.
  The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question
being the second reading of the Bill.

  Senator KNOTTS explained the Bill.

  The question then was second reading of the Bill.

   The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as
follows:
                        Ayes 3; Nays 31


[SJ]                             38
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

                                AYES
Grooms                 Massey                  Sheheen

                              Total--3

                               NAYS
Alexander              Anderson                Bright
Bryant                 Campbell                Campsen
Cleary                 Coleman                 Cromer
Davis                  Fair                    Hayes
Hutto                  Knotts                  Leatherman
Lourie                 Malloy                  Martin, Larry
Martin, Shane          McConnell               McGill
Nicholson              O'Dell                  Peeler
Rankin                 Rose                    Ryberg
Scott                  Setzler                 Shoopman
Williams

                             Total--31

 Second reading of the Bill failed. The Bill was subsequently removed
from the Calendar and proper notation was made on the cover of the
Bill.

                         COMMITTED
  S. 722 -- Fish, Game and Forestry Committee:         A JOINT
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, RELATING TO
SEASONS, LIMITS, METHODS OF TAKE, AND SPECIAL USE
RESTRICTIONS ON WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS; AND
TURKEY HUNTING RULES AND SEASONS, DESIGNATED AS
REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 4141, PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE
1976 CODE.
  Senator CROMER asked unanimous consent to commit the Bill to
the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry.
  There was no objection and the Bill was sent to the appropriate
committee.



[SJ]                             39
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

             AMENDMENT PROPOSED, OBJECTION
  S. 225 -- Senators Knotts, Ford and Alexander: A BILL TO
AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY
ADDING SECTION 56-5-3890 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS
UNLAWFUL FOR CERTAIN PERSONS WHO ARE OPERATING
A MOTOR VEHICLE TO USE A WIRELESS ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION DEVICE TO COMPOSE, SEND, OR READ A
TEXT-BASED         COMMUNICATION          AND    TO      PROVIDE
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING THIS PROVISION; AND TO
AMEND SECTION 56-1-720, RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT
OF POINTS AGAINST A PERSON’S DRIVING RECORD FOR
CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE
THAT ONE POINT MUST BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE
DRIVING RECORD OF A PERSON CONVICTED OF USING A
WIRELESS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DEVICE TO
COMPOSE,         SEND,       OR       READ   A     TEXT-BASED
COMMUNICATION WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE.
  The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question
being the second reading of the Bill.

   Senator GROOMS proposed the following amendment
(225R002.LKG):
   Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting
words and inserting:
   / SECTION 1. Article 31, Chapter 5, Title 56 of the 1976 Code is
amended by adding:
   “Section 56-5-3890. (A) For purposes of this section, ‘drive
carelessly’ means operating a vehicle without care and caution and
without full regard for the safety of persons or property.
   (B) It is unlawful for a motor vehicle driver, while driving on a
road, street, or highway of the State to drive carelessly as a result of
reading, writing, personal grooming, interacting with passengers, pets
or unsecured cargo, using a computer, using a wireless device or
telephone to send text based communications, or engaging in any other
activity which causes the driver to be distracted.
   (C) This section does not apply to a person who is:
     (1) lawfully parked or stopped;
     (2) using a hands-free wireless electronic communication device
or a voice-activated feature or function of the device;


[SJ]                              40
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

     (3) activating or         deactivating a       wireless    electronic
communication device or an internal feature or function of the device;
     (4) reading, selecting, or entering a telephone number or contact
in a wireless electronic communication device for the purpose of
making or receiving a telephone call;
     (5) summoning medical or other emergency assistance;
     (6) transmitting or receiving data as part of a digital dispatch
system;
     (7) a law enforcement officer, firefighter, emergency medical
technician, or other public safety official while in the performance of
the person’s official duties; or
     (8) using a global positioning system device or an internal global
positioning system feature or function of a wireless electronic
communication device for the purpose of navigation or obtaining
related traffic and road condition information.
   (D)(1) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor
and, upon conviction:
        (a) for a first offense, must be fined twenty dollars and pay a
twenty-five dollar Trauma Care Fund surcharge. The twenty dollar fine
is subject to all applicable court costs, assessments, and surcharges,
except as provided in item (2);
        (b) for a second offense within five years of a prior offense,
must be fined twenty-five dollars, pay a twenty-five dollar Trauma
Care Fund surcharge, and have two points assessed against the person’s
motor vehicle operating record, no part of which may be waived,
reduced, or suspended. The twenty-five dollar fine is subject to all
applicable court costs, assessments, and surcharges; and
        (c) for a third offense or subsequent offense within five years
of a prior offense, must be fined seventy-five dollars, pay a twenty-five
dollar Trauma Care Fund surcharge, and have four points assessed
against the person’s motor vehicle operating record, no part of which
may be waived, reduced, or suspended. The seventy-five dollar fine is
subject to all applicable court costs, assessments, and surcharges.
     (2)(a) For a first offense, instead of the penalty provided in
subsection (D)(1)(a), the person may successfully complete a driver’s
education program within sixty days of the person’s conviction date,
which specifically contains, in whole or in part, education regarding
distracted or inattentive driving.
        (b) The person shall select a program approved by the
Department of Public Safety’s Office of Highway Safety. The Office

[SJ]                               41
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

of Highway Safety may approve more than one program, and such
programs may be conducted by classroom, computer, or Internet. The
Office of Highway Safety shall post information regarding the
approved programs on its website.
        (c) The person shall indicate to the judge at the time of
conviction that the person intends to successfully complete a program
instead of the penalty. The judge shall instruct the person as to how the
person is to comply with the requirements of this item.
Notwithstanding Section 56-7-30, the court shall retain the records and
audit copy of the traffic ticket for the violation until the judge has made
a determination as to whether the person has successfully completed
the program.
        (d) The person shall return to the court within sixty days of the
conviction date. At that time, the person shall present an original
certificate from the program indicating that the person has successfully
completed the program. Also, the person shall sign an affidavit
provided by the court swearing or affirming that the person has
successfully completed the program.
        (e) If the judge determines that the person has successfully
completed the program, the judge shall waive the fine, the Trauma Care
Fund surcharge, and all applicable court costs, assessments, and
surcharges, except ten dollars that shall be used exclusively by the
court to offset the costs associated with administering the person’s
compliance with this item. The court shall remit the records and audit
copy of the traffic ticket to the Department of Motor Vehicles within
ten days indicating a violation of this section without any points
assessed against the person’s motor vehicle operating record. The
Department of Motor Vehicles shall indicate a violation of this section
on the person’s motor vehicle operating record without any points
assessed.
        (f) If the judge determines that the person has failed to
successfully complete the program, the judge shall impose the fine, the
Trauma Care Fund surcharge, and all other applicable court costs,
assessments, and surcharges. The court shall remit the records and
audit copy of the traffic ticket to the Department of Motor Vehicles
within ten days indicating a violation of this section. The Department
of Motor Vehicles shall indicate a violation of this section on the
person’s motor vehicle operating record.
        (g) A person is not permitted to complete a program instead of
the penalty if the person has been convicted of a prior violation of this

[SJ]                                42
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

section. Only those violations that occurred within a period of five
years, including and immediately preceding the date of the last
violation, constitute prior violations within the meaning of this
subsection.
      (3) If the person does not subsequently violate this section within
one year from the date of conviction, the Department of Motor
Vehicles shall remove the points assessed against the person’s motor
vehicle operating record. However, the Department of Motor Vehicles
shall not remove an indication of the violation of this section from the
person’s motor vehicle operating record. For purposes of this section,
if the Department of Motor Vehicles has not received a ticket or some
other notice from a court one year from the date of conviction
indicating that the person has subsequently violated this section, the
Department of Motor Vehicles shall remove the points assessed.
      (4) The Trauma Care Fund surcharge must be deposited with the
city or county treasurer, as applicable, for remittance to the State
Treasurer. The State Treasurer shall deposit the Trauma Care Fund
surcharge in the South Carolina State Trauma Care Fund. The Trauma
Care Fund surcharge must not be used by the Department of Health and
Environmental Control for the payment of the department’s
administrative or operating expenses or for any purpose other than
providing financial aid to participating trauma care providers and grants
related to trauma care in this State. The Trauma Care Fund surcharge
is not subject to the provisions of Section 44-61-520(G).
      (5) During the first one hundred eighty days after this section’s
effective date, law enforcement officers shall issue only warnings for
violations of this section.
   (E) A law enforcement officer must not:
      (1) stop a person for a violation of this section except when the
officer has probable cause that a violation has occurred based on the
officer’s clear and unobstructed view of the person;
      (2) seize or require the forfeiture of a wireless electronic
communication device because of a violation of this section;
      (3) search or request to search a motor vehicle, driver, or
passenger in a motor vehicle, solely because of a violation of this
section;
      (4) make a custodial arrest for a violation of this section, except
upon a warrant issued for failure to appear in court when summoned or
for failure to pay an imposed fine; or


[SJ]                               43
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

      (5) issue a citation to a person for a violation of this section when
the stop is made in conjunction with a driver’s license check, safety
check, or registration check conducted at a checkpoint established to
stop all drivers on a certain road for a period of time, except when the
person is cited for violating another motor vehicle law.
   (F) A person charged with a violation of this section may admit or
deny the violation, enter a plea of nolo contendere, or be tried before
either a judge or a jury. If the trier of fact is convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt that the person was using a wireless electronic
communication device to compose, send, or read a text-based
communication while operating a motor vehicle on the public streets
and highways of this State at the time of the incident, the penalty is a
fine, surcharge, and points assessment pursuant to subsection (D). If
the trier of fact determines that the State has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the person was using a wireless electronic
communication device to compose, send, or read a text-based
communication while operating a motor vehicle on the public streets
and highways of this State, no penalty shall be assessed. A person
found to be in violation of this section may bring an appeal to the court
of common pleas, pursuant to Section 18-3-10 or Section 14-25-95.
   (G) This section preempts local ordinances, regulations, and
resolutions adopted by municipalities, counties, and other local
government entities regarding persons using wireless electronic
communication devices while operating motor vehicles on the public
streets and highways of this State.
   (H) Nothing in this section is intended to conflict with enforcement
of applicable restrictions or requirements imposed on commercial
motor vehicle operators pursuant to the federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations.
   (I) A violation of this section is negligence per se.”
   SECTION 2. Section 56-1-720 of the 1976 Code is amended to
read:
   “Section 56-1-720. There is established a point system for the
evaluation of the operating record of persons to whom a license to
operate motor vehicles has been granted and for the determination of
the continuing qualifications of these persons for the privileges granted
by the license to operate motor vehicles. The system shall have as its
basic element a graduated scale of points assigning relative values to
the various violations in accordance with the following schedule:


[SJ]                                44
                     WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

  VIOLATION                                                                    POINTS
  Reckless driving ...................................................................... 6
  Passing stopped school bus...................................................... 6
  Hit-and-run, property damages only ........................................ 6
  Driving too fast for conditions, or speeding:
    (1) No more than 10 m.p.h. above the
  posted limits…… ..................................................................... 2
    (2) More than 10 m.p.h. but less than 25
       m.p.h. above the posted limits ......................................... 4
    (3) 25 m.p.h. or above the posted limits ............................. 6
  Disobedience of any official traffic control
       device……………….. ..................................................... 4
  Disobedience to officer directing traffic .................................. 4
  Failing to yield right of way .................................................... 4
  Driving on wrong side of road ................................................. 4
  Passing unlawfully ................................................................... 4
  Turning unlawfully .................................................................. 4
  Driving through or within safety zone ..................................... 4
  Failing to give signal or giving improper
    signal for stopping, turning, or suddenly
    decreased speed ................................................................... 4
  Shifting lanes without safety precaution.................................. 2
  Improper dangerous parking .................................................... 2
  Following too closely .............................................................. 4
  Failing to dim lights ................................................................. 2
  Operating with improper lights ................................................ 2
  Operating with improper brakes .............................................. 4
  Operating a vehicle in unsafe condition .................................. 2
  Driving in improper lane ......................................................... 2
  Improper backing…. ................................................................ 2
  Distracted driving
    second offense…. ................................................................ 2
  Distracted driving
    third or subsequent offense……………………………….. 4.”
  SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
  Renumber sections to conform.
  Amend title to conform.

  Senator GROOMS explained the amendment.


[SJ]                                        45
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

                               RECESS
  At 12:18 P.M., with Senator GROOMS retaining the floor, on
motion of Senator McCONNELL, with unanimous consent, the Senate
receded from business until 1:15 P.M.

                    AFTERNOON SESSION
  The Senate reassembled at 1:15 P.M. and was called to order by the
PRESIDENT.

                       Point of Quorum
  At 1:28 P.M., Senator LARRY MARTIN made the point that a
quorum was not present. It was ascertained that a quorum was not
present.

                         Call of the Senate
   Senator PEELER moved that a Call of the Senate be made. The
following Senators answered the Call:
Alexander              Anderson               Bright
Bryant                 Campbell               Campsen
Cleary                 Coleman                Cromer
Fair                   Grooms                 Hayes
Hutto                  Jackson                Knotts
Leatherman             Lourie                 Malloy
Martin, Larry          Martin, Shane          Massey
McConnell              McGill                 Nicholson
O'Dell                 Peeler                 Rankin
Rose                   Ryberg                 Scott
Setzler                Sheheen                Shoopman
Thomas                 Verdin                 Williams

  A quorum being present, the Senate resumed.

                         Recorded Presence
  Senators COURSON, DAVIS, FORD, MATTHEWS, REESE,
LAND, ELLIOTT, PINCKNEY and LEVENTIS recorded their
presence subsequent to the Call of the Senate.

  The Senate resumed consideration of Amendment No. 3A to S. 225.



[SJ]                            46
               WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

                       S. 225--Objection
  S. 225 -- Senators Knotts, Ford and Alexander: A BILL TO
AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY
ADDING SECTION 56-5-3890 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS
UNLAWFUL FOR CERTAIN PERSONS WHO ARE OPERATING
A MOTOR VEHICLE TO USE A WIRELESS ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION DEVICE TO COMPOSE, SEND, OR READ A
TEXT-BASED       COMMUNICATION          AND   TO    PROVIDE
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING THIS PROVISION; AND TO
AMEND SECTION 56-1-720, RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT
OF POINTS AGAINST A PERSON’S DRIVING RECORD FOR
CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE
THAT ONE POINT MUST BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE
DRIVING RECORD OF A PERSON CONVICTED OF USING A
WIRELESS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DEVICE TO
COMPOSE,       SEND,      OR     READ      A    TEXT-BASED
COMMUNICATION WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE.
  Senator GROOMS resumed speaking on the amendment.

  Senator LARRY MARTIN objected to further consideration of the
Bill.

                         CARRIED OVER
  S. 473 -- Senators Lourie, Setzler and Ford: A BILL TO AMEND
CHAPTER 102, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ATHLETE AGENTS AND
STUDENT AGENTS, SO AS TO REVISE DEFINITIONS, TO
INCLUDE         DEFINITIONS          FOR      “ADMINISTRATOR”,
“DEPARTMENT”, AND “FINANCIAL SERVICES CONTRACT”,
TO REVISE THE POWERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSUMER AFFAIRS WITH RESPECT TO ATHLETE AGENTS
AND STUDENT ATHLETES, TO PROVIDE FOR INSPECTION OF
OUT-OF-STATE RECORDS, TO REQUIRE AN APPLICANT TO
UNDERGO A NATIONAL AND STATE CRIMINAL HISTORY
RECORDS CHECK AND TO PROVIDE FINGERPRINTS, TO
PROVIDE FOR REPORTING AND MAINTENANCE OF
CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS CHECK RESULTS, TO REVISE
CONSIDERATIONS THE DEPARTMENT MAY MAKE WHEN
ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, TO REVISE THE
TIME IN WHICH A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IS VALID

[SJ]                          47
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

AND    TO      PROVIDE    THAT      THE      CERTIFICATE    IS
NONTRANSFERABLE AND NONASSIGNABLE, TO PROVIDE
THAT IF A PERSON AGGRIEVED BY DEPARTMENT ACTION
FAILS    TO     REQUEST     A    CONTESTED          CASE  THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS FINAL, TO PROVIDE THAT
FUNDS COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT MUST BE USED
TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, TO
REQUIRE THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ATHLETE AGENT BE
INCLUDED IN AN AGENCY CONTRACT, TO REVISE WHAT
THE CONTRACT MUST CONTAIN, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
PROHIBITED ACTS OF ATHLETE AGENTS, TO ALLOW THE
DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND
IMPOSE A PENALTY UPON FINDING OF MISCONDUCT, TO
PROVIDE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT
MAY PROMULGATE REGULATIONS NECESSARY TO
EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER.
  On motion of Senator MALLOY, the Bill was carried over.

THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING
BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE
MOTION PERIOD.

                       MOTION ADOPTED
   On motion of Senator LARRY MARTIN, the Senate agreed to
dispense with the Motion Period.

THE SENATE         PROCEEDED          TO   THE     INTERRUPTED
DEBATE.

      COMMITTEE AMENDMENT ADOPTED, AMENDED
                    READ THE SECOND TIME
       RETURNED TO THE STATUS OF SPECIAL ORDER
  S. 431 -- Senators McConnell, Rankin, Setzler, Campbell,
Shoopman, Reese, Bright, Alexander, S. Martin, Fair, Cromer, Bryant,
Elliott, O’Dell, Campsen, Ford, Rose, Lourie, Cleary, Verdin, McGill,
Williams, Nicholson, Knotts, Land and Scott: A BILL TO AMEND
THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING
SECTION 38-61-70 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A LIABILITY
INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED BY AN INSURER AND

[SJ]                             48
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

COVERING A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL IN THIS
STATE MUST BE BROADLY CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF
COVERAGE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT WORK OF A
CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL RESULTING IN PROPERTY
DAMAGE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTES AN
OCCURRENCE AS COMMONLY DEFINED IN LIABILITY
INSURANCE AND IS NOT THE INTENDED OR EXPECTED
CONSEQUENCE OF THE WORK OF THE CONSTRUCTION
PROFESSIONAL.
  The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question
being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on
Banking and Insurance.

  Senator RANKIN spoke on the Bill.

   The Committee on Banking and Insurance proposed the following
amendment (AGM\18637AB11), which was adopted:
   Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting
clause and inserting:
   / SECTION 1. Chapter 61, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by
adding:
   “Section 38-61-70. (A)(1) The General Assembly finds:
        (a) the interpretation of insurance policies issued to
construction professionals is of vital importance to the economic and
social welfare of the citizens of South Carolina and in furthering the
purposes of this section;
        (b) insurance policies issued to construction professionals have
become increasingly complex, often containing multiple, lengthy
endorsements and exclusions conflicting with the reasonable
expectations of the insured; and
        (c) the correct interpretation of coverage for damages arising
out of construction defects is in the best interest of insurers,
construction professionals, and property owners.
      (2) The General Assembly declares:
        (a) the policy of South Carolina favors the interpretation of
insurance coverage broadly for the insured;
        (b) the long-standing and continuing policy of South Carolina
favors a broad interpretation of the duty of an insurer to defend the
insured under liability insurance policies and that this duty is a
first-party benefit to and claim on behalf of the insured; and

[SJ]                              49
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

         (c) for purposes of guiding pending and future actions
interpreting a liability insurance policy issued to a construction
professional at any time, past, present or future, the General Assembly
clarifies and confirms what has been and continues to be the policy of
South Carolina for the interpretation of a past, existing, and future
liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional.
   (B) For the purposes of this section:
      (1) ‘Insurance’ has the same meaning as set forth in Section
38-1-20(25);
      (2) ‘Insurer’ has the same meaning as set forth in Section
38-1-20(33);
      (3) ‘Insurance policy’ has the same meaning as set forth in
Section 38-1-20(45);
      (4) ‘Liability insurance policy’ means a contract of insurance that
covers occurrences of damage or injury during the policy period and
insures a construction professional for liability arising from
construction-related work; and
      (5) ‘Construction professional’ means a person, sole
proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or
other recognized legal entity that engages in an activity intended to
assist in the design, construction, or repair of an improvement to real
property regardless of whether this person or entity maintains a
professional license under Title 40.
   (C)(1) In interpreting a liability insurance policy issued to a
construction professional, continuous or repeated exposure to
substantially the same general harmful condition must constitute an
‘occurrence’ and in these cases no additional or accompanying
requirement of an accident or fortuitous event is needed to constitute an
‘occurrence’.
      (2) Nothing in this subsection:
         (a) requires coverage for damage to an insured’s own work
unless otherwise provided in the insurance policy; or
         (b) creates insurance coverage that is not included in the
insurance policy.
   (D)(1) Upon a finding of ambiguity in an insurance policy issued to
a construction professional, a court may consider the objective and
reasonable expectations of a construction professional in interpreting
the policy.
      (2) In construing an insurance policy to meet the objective and
reasonable expectations of a construction professional:

[SJ]                               50
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

        (a) a court may consider:
           (i) the object sought to be obtained by the construction
professional in the purchase of the insurance policy; and
           (ii) whether a construction defect has directly or indirectly
resulted in bodily injury, property damage, or loss of the use of
property; and
        (b) a court may consider and give weight to any writing
concerning the insurance policy provision in dispute:
           (i) that is not protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege or work-product privilege; and
           (ii) that is generated, approved, adopted, or relied on by the
insurer or a parent company or subsidiary company of the insurer or an
insurance rating or policy drafting organization, such as the Insurance
Services Office, Inc., or its predecessor or successor organization. A
writing described in subitem (b) may not be used to restrict, limit,
exclude, or condition coverage or the obligation of the insurer beyond
what may be reasonably inferred from the words used in the insurance
policy.
   (E) If an insurance policy provision that appears to grant or restore
coverage conflicts with an insurance policy provision that appears to
exclude or limit coverage, the court shall construe the insurance policy
to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible.
   (F) If an insurer disclaims or limits coverage under a liability
insurance policy issued to a construction professional, the insurer shall
bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that:
     (1) a policy limitation, exclusion, or condition bars or limits
coverage for the legal liability of the insured in an action or notice of
claim made pursuant to this section concerning a construction defect;
and
     (2) an exception to the limitation, exclusion, or condition in the
insurance policy does not restore coverage under the policy.
   (G)(1) The duty of an insurer to defend a construction professional
or other insured under a liability insurance policy issued to a
construction professional is triggered by a potentially covered liability
described in a:
        (a) notice of claim made pursuant to this section; or
        (b) complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim
filed in an action against the construction professional concerning a
construction defect.


[SJ]                               51
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

     (2)(a) An insurer shall defend a construction professional who
receives a notice of claim made pursuant to this section regardless of
whether another insurer also may owe the insured a duty to defend the
notice of claim unless authorized by law. In defending this claim, the
insurer shall reasonably:
           (i) investigate the claim; and
           (ii) cooperate with the insured in the notice of claims
process.
        (b) This item does not require the insurer to retain legal
counsel for the insured or to pay any sums toward settlement of the
notice of claim that are not covered by the insurance policy.
        (c) An insurer may not withdraw its defense of an insured
construction professional or commence an action seeking
reimbursement from an insured for expended defense cost unless
authorized by law and unless the insurer has reserved this right in
writing when accepting or assuming the defense obligation.”
   SECTION 2. Article 5, Chapter 3, Title 15 of the 1976 Code is
amended by adding:
   “Section 15-3-645. (A) For purposes of this section ‘construction
professional’ means a person, sole proprietorship, partnership,
corporation, limited liability company, or other recognized legal entity
that engages in an activity intended to assist in the design, construction,
or repair of an improvement to real property regardless of whether this
person or entity maintains a professional license under Title 40.
   (B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a provision in an
insurance contract issued to a construction professional excluding or
limiting coverage for one or more claims for personal injury, death, or
damage to property based upon or arising out of the defective or unsafe
condition of an improvement to real property that occurs prior to a
policy’s inception date and continues, worsens, or progresses while the
policy is in effect is void and unenforceable unless the exclusion or
limitation applies only if the insured had actual knowledge of the injury
or damage prior to the policy’s inception date.
   (C) Any provision contained in a policy in violation of this section
is void and unenforceable and a court shall construe any policy
containing such a provision as if the provision was not a part of the
policy when issued.
   (D) This section only applies to an insurance policy that covers
occurrences of damage or injury during the policy period and that


[SJ]                                52
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

insures a construction professional for liability arising from
construction related activities.
   (E) In order to deny or refuse to defend a claim against an insured
construction professional based upon or arising out of the defective or
unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, the insurer must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
     (1) the policy is not subject to the provisions of subsection (B)
because the injury did not occur and did not continue, worsen, or
progress during the period of coverage; or
     (2) the insured had actual knowledge of the injury or damage
prior to the policy’s inception date.”
   SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this act is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional or invalid, such holding shall not affect the
constitutionality or validity of the remaining portions of this act, the
General Assembly hereby declaring that it would have passed this act,
and each and every section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more other sections, subsections, paragraphs,
subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words hereof may be
declared to be unconstitutional, invalid, or otherwise ineffective.
   SECTION 4. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor
and applies to all contracts of insurance in existence on or issued after
the effective date and applies to any dispute over coverage that would
otherwise be affected by this section ongoing as of the effective date. /
   Renumber sections to conform.
   Amend title to conform.

  Senator RANKIN spoke on the committee amendment.

  The committee amendment was adopted.

                         Amendment No. 2B
   Senators RANKIN, SHEHEEN, SETZLER, MASSEY, COLEMAN
and KNOTTS proposed the following amendment (JUD0431.003),
which was adopted:
   Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting
language and inserting:
     / SECTION 1. Chapter 61, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is
amended by adding:

[SJ]                               53
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

     “Section 38-61-70. (A) For purposes of this section:
     (1) ‘Insurance’ has the same meaning as set forth in Section 38-
1-20(25);
     (2) ‘Insurer’ has the same meaning as set forth in Section 38-1-
20(33);
     (3) ‘Insurance policy’ has the same meaning as set forth in
Section 38-1-20(45);
     (4) ‘Liability insurance policy’ means a contract of insurance that
covers occurrences of damages or injury during the policy period and
insures a construction professional for liability arising from
construction-related work; and
     (5) ‘Construction professional’ means a person, sole
proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or
other recognized legal entity that engages in an activity intended to
assist in the design, development, construction, installation, or repair of
an improvement to real property regardless of whether this person or
entity maintains a professional license pursuant to Title 40.
   (B) For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction
professional, an ‘occurrence’ means, at a minimum:
        (1) an accident; or
        (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same
general harmful condition or substance.
   No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to
constitute an ‘occurrence’.
   (C) If an insurance policy provision that appears to grant or restore
coverage conflicts with an insurance policy provision that appears to
exclude or limit coverage, the court shall construe the insurance policy
to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible.
   (D) This section applies only to an insurance policy that insures a
construction professional for liability arising from construction related
activities.
   (E) This section applies to any pending or future dispute over
coverage that would otherwise be affected by this section as to all
contracts of insurance issued in the past, currently in existence, or
issued in the future.”
   SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this act is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional or invalid, such holding shall not affect the
constitutionality or validity of the remaining portions of this act, the
General Assembly hereby declaring that it would have passed this act,

[SJ]                                54
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

and each and every section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more other sections, subsections, paragraphs,
subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words hereof may be
declared to be unconstitutional, invalid, or otherwise ineffective.
   SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor
and applies to any pending or future dispute over coverage that would
otherwise be affected by this section as to all contracts of insurance
issued in the past, currently in existence, or issued in the future. /
   Renumber sections to conform.
   Amend title to conform.

  Senator SHEHEEN explained the amendment.

  The amendment was adopted.

                           Amendment No. 3
   Senators MASSEY and LARRY MARTIN proposed the following
amendment (JUD0431.004), which was tabled:
   Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting
language and inserting:
     / SECTION 1. Chapter 61, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is
amended by adding:
     “Section 38-61-70. (A) For purposes of this section:
     (1) ‘Insurance’ has the same meaning as set forth in Section 38-
1-20(25);
     (2) ‘Insurer’ has the same meaning as set forth in Section 38-1-
20(33);
     (3) ‘Insurance policy’ has the same meaning as set forth in
Section 38-1-20(45);
     (4) ‘Liability insurance policy’ means a contract of insurance that
covers occurrences of damages or injury during the policy period and
insures a construction professional for liability arising from
construction-related work; and
     (5) ‘Construction professional’ means a person, sole
proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or
other recognized legal entity that engages in an activity intended to
assist in the design, development, construction, installation, or repair of
an improvement to real property regardless of whether this person or
entity maintains a professional license pursuant to Title 40.

[SJ]                                55
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

   (B) For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction
professional, an ‘occurrence’ means:
        (1) an accident; or
        (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same
general harmful condition or substance.
   No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to
constitute an ‘occurrence’.
   (C) This section applies only to an insurance policy that insures a
construction professional for liability arising from construction related
activities.
   (D) This section applies to any pending or future dispute over
coverage that would otherwise be affected by this section as to all
contracts of insurance issued in the past, currently in existence, or
issued in the future.”
   SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this act is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional or invalid, such holding shall not affect the
constitutionality or validity of the remaining portions of this act, the
General Assembly hereby declaring that it would have passed this act,
and each and every section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more other sections, subsections, paragraphs,
subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words hereof may be
declared to be unconstitutional, invalid, or otherwise ineffective.
   SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor
and applies to any pending or future dispute over coverage that would
otherwise be affected by this section as to all contracts of insurance
issued in the past, currently in existence, or issued in the future. /
   Renumber sections to conform.
   Amend title to conform.

  Senator MASSEY explained the amendment.
  Senator RANKIN moved to lay the amendment on the table.

   The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as
follows:
                       Ayes 27; Nays 14




[SJ]                               56
                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

                                AYES
Alexander               Anderson                Campbell
Campsen                 Cleary                  Coleman
Courson                 Elliott                 Ford
Grooms                  Hayes                   Hutto
Knotts                  Land                    Leatherman
Lourie                  Malloy                  Matthews
McConnell               McGill                  O’Dell
Pinckney                Rankin                  Rose
Scott                   Setzler                 Williams

                              Total--27

                                 NAYS
Bright                  Bryant                  Cromer
Davis                   Fair                    Martin, Larry
Martin, Shane           Massey                  Peeler
Reese                   Ryberg                  Sheheen
Shoopman                Verdin

                              Total--14

  The amendment was laid on the table.

  The question then was the second reading of the Bill.

  Senator PEELER spoke on the Bill.
  Senator McCONNELL spoke on the Bill.
  Senator LARRY MARTIN spoke on the Bill.

   The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as
follows:
                        Ayes 41; Nays 2

                               AYES
Alexander               Anderson                Bright
Bryant                  Campbell                Campsen
Cleary                  Coleman                 Courson
Cromer                  Davis                   Elliott
Fair                    Ford                    Grooms

[SJ]                              57
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

Hayes                    Hutto                    Jackson
Knotts                   Land                     Leatherman
Leventis                 Lourie                   Malloy
Martin, Shane            Massey                   Matthews
McConnell                McGill                   Nicholson
O’Dell                   Rankin                   Reese
Rose                     Ryberg                   Scott
Setzler                  Sheheen                  Shoopman
Verdin                   Williams

                                  Total--41

                                   NAYS
Martin, Larry            Peeler

                                  Total--2

            S. 431--Statement by Senator PINCKNEY
  Had I been present in the Chamber at the time the vote was taken, I
would have voted in favor of second reading of the Bill.

  The Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third
reading.

  The Bill was returned to the status of Special Order.

               Statement by Senator LARRY MARTIN
   This Bill presents a unique difficulty for me. I have always
supported the groups that are behind this Bill as they represent the
essential underpinnings of our State’s economy, i.e. homebuilders and
contractors. When I was approached by these groups in mid-January, I
readily signed on as a co-sponsor to the legislation. As time permitted,
I later read Justice Kittredge’s January 7th opinion for the unanimous
Supreme Court in Crossman v. Harleysville. Whether one agrees with
the decision or not, it was a conservative and extremely well- reasoned
opinion on a very complex issue.
   In reading the opinion I became aware of the tremendous policy
issues at stake in this Bill. The obvious ones are: the prerogative of the
Supreme Court to decide the merits of a private contract dispute; the
Bill poses a clear Separation of Powers question in this regard; the

[SJ]                                 58
                  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

authority of the Legislature to apply a statute retroactively on a decision
of the Court; and, a question on the impairment of contracts.
   Additionally, the Supreme Court announced recently that it had
granted a motion to rehear its decision in Crossman and set a hearing
schedule for May 23rd. In light of this development, I believe the
Senate should adjourn debate on the Bill pending a decision by the
court. That is the venue where this issue is most properly addressed
and not in the halls of the Legislature. If the Senate moves the Bill
forward and it is signed into law, there will likely be further litigation
not less. We run the risk the new law could disrupt the market for this
type of coverage and make it more expensive to purchase. It is for
these reasons that I voted “no” on this Bill.

  On motion of Senator McCONNELL, the Senate stood adjourned.

                       MOTION ADOPTED
     On motion of Senator McGILL, with unanimous consent, the
  Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of Mr. G.
  Curtis Kennedy, Jr. or Kingstree, S.C., beloved husband of Susan
  Castles Kennedy, devoted father and brother and loyal companion
  to Jessie.

                                   and

                        MOTION ADOPTED
     On motion of Senator GROOMS, with unanimous consent, the
  Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of Mrs.
  Darlene H. Fertig of Bonneau Beach, S.C., who passed away
  March 23, 2011. Mrs. Fertig was a beloved wife to Ken C. Fertig
  and devoted mother. A wonderful homemaker, she will be missed
  by family and friends and her dog, Cocoa Moe.


                         ADJOURNMENT
  At 4:35 P.M., on motion of Senator McCONNELL, the Senate
adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M.




[SJ]                                59
              WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

                      Recorded Vote
  Senator BRIGHT desired to be recorded as voting against
adjournment.

                          ***




[SJ]                       60
                          WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011

                             SENATE JOURNAL INDEX

S. 30 ...................................... 27        S. 744 ....................................17
S. 36 ...................................... 34        S. 745 ....................................18
S. 53 ...................................... 27        S. 746 ....................................18
S. 211 .................................... 27         S. 747 ....................................20
S. 225 .............................. 40, 47           S. 748 ....................................20
S. 336 .................................... 34         S. 749 ....................................21
S. 385 .................................... 28         S. 750 ....................................21
S. 431 .................................... 48         S. 751 ....................................21
S. 435 .................................... 29         S. 752 ....................................22
S. 473 .................................... 47         S. 753 ....................................22
S. 568 .................................... 36         S. 754 ....................................22
S. 591 .................................... 29         S. 755 ....................................23
S. 647 .................................... 29         S. 756 ....................................23
S. 690 .................................... 30
S. 692 .................................... 16         H. 3287 .................................38
S. 693 .................................... 30         H. 3303 .................................32
S. 694 .................................... 31         H. 3374 .................................33
S. 721 .................................... 37         H. 3399 .................................35
S. 722 .................................... 39         H. 3496 .................................23
S. 730 .................................... 16         H. 3625 .................................33
S. 743 .................................... 17         H. 3985 .................................24




[SJ]                                              61

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:13
posted:2/23/2012
language:
pages:62