THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2017
Thursday, April 6, 2017
(Statewide Session)
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The Senate assembled at 10:00 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:
2 Timothy 4:7
“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.”
Let us pray. Gracious God, in the political arena it is so easy to count one’s success by wins and losses. When running for office or passing legislation, it is very tempting to keep score as the signature test of success.
Recently a coach was asked about his thoughts on a heartbreaking loss. He responded that he had told his kids, “Years from now no one will remember the score, but rather they will remember how far you came.”
Eternal God, we are thankful that You do not keep score and that years from now You will not remember our wins and losses but rather “how far we came” over the span of our lives. Help us O God, to realize that it is our spiritual growth that bonds us to You for eternity. In Your holy name we pray, Amen.
The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.
Point of Quorum
At 10:03 P.M., Senator LEATHERMAN made the point that a quorum was not present. It was ascertained that a quorum was present.
Doctor of the Day
Senator TURNER introduced Dr. C. Wendell James, of Greenville, S.C., Doctor of the Day.
CO-SPONSORS ADDED
The following co-sponsors were added to the respective Bills:
S. 478 Sen. Alexander
Privilege of the Chamber
On motion of Senator DAVIS, on behalf of Senator NICHOLSON, the Privilege of the Chamber, to that area behind the rail, was extended to Ms. Billie Jean Shaw to recognize her success in journalism and wish her the best of luck as she relocates to Charlotte, N.C.
RECALLED
S.487 -- Senator Jackson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE INTERCHANGE LOCATED AT THE JUNCTION OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS 126 AND 26 IN RICHLAND COUNTY “MILTON KIMPSON INTERCHANGE” AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS INTERCHANGE CONTAINING THIS DESIGNATION.
Senator SCOTT asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Concurrent Resolution from the Committee on Transportation.
The Concurrent Resolution was recalled from the Committee on Transportation and ordered placed on the Calendar for consideration tomorrow.
RECALLED AND ADOPTED
S.574 -- Senators Scott, McLeod, Fanning, McElveen, Jackson and Setzler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ATTACH A SIGN CONTAINING THE WORDS “WELCOME TO THE CITY OF COLUMBIA” ONTO THE CONGRESSMAN JAMES E. CLYBURN PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS CROSSING THE SOUTHBOUND LANES OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 277 IN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA.
Senator JACKSON asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Concurrent Resolution from the Committee on Transportation.
The Concurrent Resolution was recalled from the Committee on Transportation and ordered placed on the Calendar for consideration tomorrow.
Senator SCOTT asked unanimous consent to make a motion to take the Concurrent Resolution up for immediate consideration.
There was no objection.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Concurrent Resolution. The question then was the adoption of the Concurrent Resolution.
On motion of Senator SCOTT, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted and ordered sent to the House.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
The following were introduced:
S. 626 -- Transportation Committee: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 140, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY ISSUE "POWERING THE PALMETTO STATE" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES HONORING SOUTH CAROLINA'S ELECTRICAL LINEMEN; TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 141, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MAY ISSUE "LEGION OF MERIT" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-8400, RELATING TO "LIONS CLUB" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MAY ISSUE "LIONS CLUB" SPECIAL MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE PLATES TO OWNERS OF PRIVATE PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES AS DEFINED IN SECTION 56-3-630 REGISTERED IN THEIR NAMES; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 142, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MAY ISSUE "VIRGINIA TECH" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES.
l:\s-res\lkg\021lice.dmr.lkg.docx
Read the first time and ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
S. 627 -- Senator Grooms: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE LAING MIDDLE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN MT. PLEASANT ON BEING NAMED NUMBER ONE STEM MIDDLE SCHOOL IN THE NATION AND TO WISH THE STUDENTS, TEACHERS, AND ADMINISTRATION CONTINUED SUCCESS IN ALL THEIR FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
l:\s-res\lkg\022lain.kmm.lkg.docx
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.
HOUSE CONCURRENCE
S.625 -- Senators Scott, Alexander, Allen, Bennett, Campbell, Campsen, Climer, Corbin, Cromer, Davis, Fanning, Gambrell, Goldfinch, Gregory, Grooms, Hembree, Hutto, Jackson, Johnson, Kimpson, Leatherman, Malloy, Martin, Massey, J.Matthews, M.B.Matthews, McElveen, McLeod, Nicholson, Peeler, Rankin, Reese, Rice, Sabb, Senn, Setzler, Shealy, Sheheen, Talley, Timmons, Turner, Verdin, Williams and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE A’JA WILSON OF RICHLAND COUNTY FOR HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS A UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA WOMEN’S BASKETBALL PLAYER, AND TO CONGRATULATE HER ON THE TEAM’S 2017 NCAA CHAMPIONSHIP AND HER SELECTION AS THE MOST OUTSTANDING PLAYER OF THE TOURNAMENT AS WELL AS THE RECIPIENT OF MANY OTHER AWARDS.
Returned with concurrence.
Received as information.
THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CONSIDERATION OF H.3720, GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
READ THE THIRD TIME
RETURNED TO THE HOUSE
H.3720 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO MAKE APPROPRIATIONS AND TO PROVIDE REVENUES TO MEET THE ORDINARY EXPENSES OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2017, TO REGULATE THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH FUNDS, AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT DURING THIS FISCAL YEAR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question being the third reading of the Bill.
Motion Adopted
On motion of Senator MASSEY, with unanimous consent, the Senate agreed that the staff of the Senate Finance Committee be allowed to prepare the necessary technical correcting and balancing amendment to be delivered to, and certified by the Clerk, and for the amendment to be adopted upon his certification for inclusion in H. 3720.
Amendment No. 39
Senators GROOMS, SHEALY, SHEHEEN and SCOTT proposed the following amendment (3720R013.KMM.LKG.DOCX), which was adopted (#26):
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Part IB, Section 109, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, page 461, after line 22, by adding an appropriately numbered new proviso to read:
/ 109.12. (DOR: Retail Liquor Dealer License Supplemental Fee) In addition to other fees imposed by the Department of Revenue in relation to retail dealer licenses issued pursuant to Chapter 6, Title 61, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, the department shall collect a supplemental license fee for all applications for a fourth or subsequent retail dealer license. The supplemental fee shall apply to each location for which the applicant proposes to do business under the license. The supplemental fee for an existing licensee shall be equal to the average gross sales for each of the licensee’s existing licensed locations during the twelve months immediately preceding the month in which the application is submitted. The supplemental fee for an applicant who does not have any licensed locations from which to derive average gross sales data shall be equal to the average gross sales of the geographically nearest three licensees. The fee shall be remitted in twelve equal installments beginning on July 31 and on the last day of each month during the fiscal year. The fee imposed pursuant to this proviso is necessary to fund additional law enforcement, regulatory measures, health care costs, and associated impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of the State’s residents resulting from the anticipated additional sales of liquor. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend sections, totals and title to conform.
Senator GROOMS spoke on the amendment.
Point of Order
Decision of the PRESIDENT
The PRESIDENT took up the Point of Order raised by Senator GREGORY on April 5, 2017, that the amendment was out of order inasmuch as it was violative of Rule 24A and was not germane to the Bill.
The PRESIDENT overruled the Point of Order.
Senator GROOMS spoke on the amendment.
Senator HUTTO spoke on the amendment.
Senator GREGORY spoke on the amendment.
Remarks by Senator GREGORY
Thank you, Mr. PRESIDENT, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Several years ago in Judiciary Committee there was a Bill that we attempted to pass that would have increased the limit for alcohol licenses to seven. I found that debate to be quite interesting because we lost that vote in Judiciary Committee. The reason we lost is that there was an alliance formed between the Baptist and small time liquor store owners that beat the legislation back -- credit to the people that were working in opposition to my Bill for being able to accomplish that. During that debate the idea that occurred to me over and over is, what's wrong with competition? -- especially in the Senate. We have many Senators that declare themselves to be free marketeers on every issue but this one. I never could understand that during the judiciary debate. There's a lot of logic that was advanced -- same type I’ve heard since this issue has come back up. But you know, it brings to mind to me first and foremost, Julius Murray because Julius Murray, for those of you that just arrived in the last couple of election cycles, Julius Murray was a former Senator from Richland, Kay Patterson’s cousin. I think he lived in Sumter. I don't know if he's still around or not. Any time when Senator Patterson was here and an issue came up that happened to contradict one's core of beliefs, but they still went ahead with contradicting their core beliefs for whatever purpose they chose to, the default reason for that was Julius Murray’s famous quote, "That's different." That is basically what we have here with this issue on limiting someone to be able to own just three locations of a liquor store.
I know a little bit about the liquor business from my childhood. My mother is from Ridgeland down in Jasper County and my grandparents were small business people. In Ridgeland, they had a grocery store and right beside the store they had a liquor store. I can remember when I was a child, the hours of the liquor store were sun up to sundown. Of course it somewhat was subjective as to when the sun went down. But that is indicative of many of the laws that govern liquor and alcohol in our State. I think they are somewhat capricious. But more importantly, they are all written to benefit the people that are already in the business and keep out people that aren't in the business. You look into these laws -- a lot of them came out of prohibition -- and the three tier system and so many other things that devolve from it -- it is all protectionism. Everybody knows that -- nothing but protectionism. And what never comes up in this debate is what is best for the consumer. Why is this the only industry in the State in which nobody seems to care about the consumer? Does anyone have an answer to that? Can somebody tell me another industry in this State that is limited to three locations? Why do you want to limit your constituent's choice of where they can go -- what liquor store they can go to? We all know the reason behind this is because there are some people in this industry that do the business better than others. But we want to keep them out and we want to keep our constituents from having opportunity to buy from those retailers because the other side has a stronger lobby. They have more people out there in the lobby and there are more of them -- more small town liquor store owners than there are owners that toe the line. We won't let people outside of the three metropolitan areas in this State go to Green’s or Total Wine or wherever they want to go because we are going to limit them to three locations in the State. There should be no limit on the number of locations of any business. Businesses should be allowed to rise and fall on their own merits. This business is a commodity business. I understand commodity business. I am in a commodity business. What I sell is no different than what my competitors sell. The only thing that differentiates my business and the liquor store are price, location and service. And if you limit the number of locations and number of stores that somebody can own, you are limited to the number of locations. So they can't effectively compete with people who are not as adroit in the business and can suffer less than they can because they have come up with a better model. And you know, the justification is alcohol, as if that’s something different. We even got Lowcountry legislators surprisingly, amazingly that are against greater access to alcohol for their constituents. What would cousin Arthur say about that? I can't imagine he would be up here against that. So again, I just say, what's wrong with competition? Probably the best convenience store out there today is QT and they're sprouting up all over the State. Is it viable, is it justifiable to limit QT convenience stores to three locations in the State? Anybody in favor of that? What's the difference between that and this? But anyway, this whole thing is driven by anti-consumer lobbyists and it is unfortunate because it is like one of my favorite quotes from the movie "Wall Street". When Hal Holbrook’s character says to Bud Fox when he's about to do something or go down a road he shouldn't go down, he says, "The bad thing about money, Bud, is it makes you do things you don't want to do." And you know, the same thing is the case here. It is all driven by money as is every issue in the lobby. And you know, as far as this argument that we shouldn't change -- people invested in this business because you're limited to three locations, well, we change laws every day here. What's different between this and anything else we do? That's why all of those people are employed throughout the lobby because they either want us to change something or they don't want us to change something. There is nothing unusual about us changing a law. Businessman Henry Luce says, “It is a continual sight in foresight.” You have to be able to see around curves and know what threats are out there. And this is obviously a threat to people that are already in this business. They had their opportunity. They had their opportunity two or three years ago when we had this legislation in Judiciary Committee. And they were so smug when they defeated that Bill. They are not so smug anymore after the Supreme Court ruled that the three store limit is unconstitutional. Now they want to make a deal. They want to make the same deal they were offered two or three years ago.