| Printed Page 4780, June 13 | Printed Page 4800, June 13 |

June 13th, 1995, is the day I, Grady A. Brown, voted against the 1995-96 South Carolina Appropriation Bill. Although I favor and support a great majority of the proposals in the budget, I am adamantly opposed to the extension of Chem-Nuclear operation of the Barnwell Nuclear Site. I strongly support any rollback of property taxes, and I voted for the original Appropriation Bill as passed by the House of Representatives. I have strong feelings about the fact that the House of Representatives should have been given the opportunity to vote Yea or Nay on the Barnwell issue so that the House conferees would have known the position a majority of the House members have taken on this matter.

By voting against the 1995-96 Appropriation Bill, I realize that vote is recorded as a "no" vote on the entire bill. But for the record, my only opposition to the 1995-96 Appropriation Bill is the continuation of the operation of the Barnwell Nuclear Storage facility.

Rep. GRADY A. BROWN

Many conservative House Republicans voted for and sent to the Senate a conservative budget that produced and gave a smaller, less intrusive government and at the same time gave much needed property tax relief.

Some of us ran and promised cuts and a smaller budget. Republicans have controlled the House for only five months, and the budget we have before us today sets a new record for budgets and for that reason I find myself unable to support the budget.

Rep. HARRY M. HALLMAN, JR.

While I support many provisions of the Appropriation Bill, particularly the property tax relief and other measures which benefit the citizens of District 65, I cannot vote to extend the life of the low level nuclear storage facility at Barnwell and therefore vote no on the Budget.

Rep. J. MICHAEL BAXLEY

The main reason I vote for today's 1995-96 budget is the $195 million in property tax relief. Currently, the taxpayers are carrying the burden for school and county operations. I support tax relief because the taxpayer deserves relief and does not have the avenue nor the means to lobby state government. However, on top of property tax relief, we made a promise for less government. This budget is disappointing because we are

Rep. RONALD N. FLEMING

I voted for this 1995 Budget because the benefits far outweigh the detriments contained in it. This budget provides for the largest tax decrease ever in South Carolina ($195 million). The budget also provides for teacher pay increases (4.2%) and state employee pay increases (3.5%). Both of these groups have been neglected for far too long. The budget also provides funding to implement a long overdue revamping of the welfare system. It also provides for homestead exemptions for the elderly and will provide for an Educational Assistance Endowment Fund which will help regenerate our school facilities and provide scholarship grants for college students.

I'm sorry that the Barnwell low level nuclear storage facility was not openly debated by the House. On two occasions as recorded in the House Journal on June 12 and 13, I voted to debate the issue. On both occasions the vote was defeated.

One of the most important task for us as legislators is to decide how the revenues of this State shall be spent for the citizens of South Carolina. Failure to accomplish this task would be a great failure.

Despite the shortcomings contained in this budget I still find that as a whole it provides greater benefits for the citizens of Sumter and South Carolina than any detriments that may be voiced.

Rep. W. JEFFREY YOUNG

I voted against the 1995-96 General Appropriations Bill. My problems with this Bill also extend to much of the overall budget process this year.

For all of the talk of fiscal conservatism, the General Assembly is spending more - not less - money this year. And we are risking mid-year cuts by spending every dollar that the economic advisors can estimate may be available. Last year the General Assembly finally had the resolve to

Another major fault on this Bill is that it abandons the long-standing, sound policy of this State concerning nuclear waste. I do not simply say "low-level" waste because the decision of this Bill may ultimately lead to our State receiving the most dangerous nuclear waste. The General Assembly, by passing this Bill, had decided to open South Carolina's low-level nuclear waste facility to the entire country forever. The facility will never be closed now.

Despite talk of morality, the General Assembly goes for the cash by allowing the video poker industry to expand beyond what the people authorized a few months ago.

When I look at anticipated property tax savings, I am concerned that they may never materialize. But I think we could have done better with the money we have. Look at all the "local projects" that have been funded with money that could have reduced the need for nuclear waste and video poker money. Why spend millions on local projects that the local communities did not think enough of to fund with local taxes? Why not spend that money on school buildings or other needs that every community has?

I have tried to balance my concerns, realizing that no budget can be exactly what every member wants. However, the fiscal, environmental and moral compromises in this Bill are so overwhelming that I cannot vote for it.

Rep. JOSEPH T. McELVEEN, JR.

I voted for the Conference Report because of property tax relief, the Confederate Flag, the Citadel and the Legacy Trust Fund. However, I have and will continue to vote against Barnwell and video poker law changes.

Rep. RICHARD M. QUINN, JR.

I cannot in good conscience vote for this Appropriations Bill.

While I support the concept of property tax relief, it is unfortunately being used as a "Trojan Horse" to ensure that the Chem Nuclear site is opened to nuclear waste from around the nation. A substantial majority of South Carolinians are opposed to this concept, yet the leadership has

I also must register a concern about the manner in which property tax relief is funded. We have failed to identify a reliable source of paying for tax relief in future years, and I believe that a downturn in the economy, a natural disaster, or additional responsibilities placed on the State by the Federal Government will jeopardize our ability to fulfill the promise of future tax relief. This will not only endanger property tax relief, but jeopardize funding for school children, college students, and the health care needs of our citizens.

Rep. JAMES H. HODGES

I vote for the budget and note my continued opposition to the inclusion of the Barnwell issue as a part of it. I have made every procedural move possible to have this issue debated. Each such attempt failed.

Rep. JAMES L.M. CROMER, JR.

Statement - why I could not vote for the 1995-1996 Appropriation Bill. I do not support the continuation of the Barnwell Dump as I believe that it is time that other states do their share. I also do not support the relaxation of rules for the video poker machine industry, which I believe will be a detriment to our citizens. Also, I ran on the platform of less government - the only way to do that is to not give government more money to spend. We did not do that - we need less government, but this Bill only adds to our problems.

Rep. HERBERT KIRSH

We have spent too much money. We have not done what needs to be done to reduce the size of government. Though no budget is perfect, this one, on balance, has more good than bad. But only just so. It is my goal for next year that we reduce spending and give further tax relief. We have taken a first step but there are miles to go before we sleep.

Rep. L. HUNTER LIMBAUGH

Had I been in the House Chambers when the vote on House Bill 3362 was taken, I would have voted Yea.

Rep. HAROLD G. WORLEY

I reluctantly voted in favor of this year's Budget Conference Report. Unfortunately it failed to cut or even control the growth and size of government. I support property tax relief, but I do not believe that it should come at the expense of my fundamental belief that the size of government is and continues to be our primary problem.

Until government is fiscally responsible to the people that maintain it, I will not be proud of a Bill which continues to increase its size. It is irresponsible to substantiate spending more because we are fortunate enough to have raised more.

Rep. DOUG SMITH

Due to the increased spending and the reversal policy regarding Barnwell, I found myself unable to support the budget given to us by the Conference Committee. I fully supported the House budget in March which cut spending, did not raise taxes, did not reopen the Barnwell nuclear waste facility and gave $183 million for property tax relief. I favor a smaller, less intrusive government and the South Carolina 1995-1996 budget is larger and more intrusive than last year.

Rep. LYNN SEITHEL

After much consideration, deliberation and even prayer, I voted for passage of this budget as recommended by the Conference Committee because overall the good points outweigh those which I oppose.

Meaningful property tax reform for homeowners without abandoning our commitment to public education has been my priority; and on this I commend our leadership and Conferees. While this is the equivalent of five giant steps forward, we have "marched backward into the future" in several areas.

None of us nor the Governor campaigned on the issue of keeping Barnwell open or withdrawal from the SE Compact. The decision to completely reverse State policy on this critical issue is wrong and short sighted. It is not a question of whether we have prostituted ourselves, but instead simply a recognition that we are for sale.

Lastly, the tactic of forcing a vote up or down on the Budget without allowing debate, discussion and individual votes on issues of major controversy does this institution and the public a disservice, hiding the decision from the sunshine of open scrutiny.

Overall, 5 giant steps forward, 3 back - we made progress!

Rep. WILLIAM F. COTTY

I am very disappointed that I had to cast a reluctant yes vote on this year's Conference Report on the Budget. Being on the Ways and Means Committee when the initial House version was passed I was proud to say we both cut government spending, the size of growth and were able to include 183 million in property tax relief. I believe that was a fiscally sound budget. My basic belief is that government that governs best governs least.

Rep. RONALD C. FULMER

Despite the fact that I support of lot of that which is included in the Budget, I must vote against the conference report because to vote for it would be to surrender my only opportunity to oppose efforts to change a long standing state policy relative to accepting out of state low level radioactive waste.

Had members of the House not been denied an opportunity to formally discuss the issue and record a vote either pro or con, I wouldn't be in this position.

I still don't understand the urgency to leave the Southeast Compact. I still cannot ascertain why it is so important to have the radioactive waste issue rammed through without discussion or a vote. This budget doesn't spend the money... No one can tell us exactly how much money will come in from the new fees from Barnwell.

Yet, despite these facts, we are rushing ahead, with no debate, with no roll call vote, we are locking ourselves into exiting from the Southeast Regional Compact. We are making a decision which cannot be reversed. We are ensuring that South Carolina will remain open to the nation's waste for a long long time if not forever.

Rep. WILLIAM D. KEYSERLING

This year in the legislature has allowed me the opportunity to work with people and legislators of different backgrounds and political parties. The exchange of ideas and formulation of opinions to help make South Carolina a better place was encouraging.

Regretfully, I was not able vote for H. 3362 - Free Conference Report. State employee pay raises, teacher pay raises, welfare reform, property tax relief, and the pro-business attitude on the Commission of Higher Education are things that are needed in order for South Carolina to move forward.

Citadel men have made great contributions to South Carolina and the world. Unfortunately the Citadel will not be able to produce great Citadel people who can contribute to South Carolinians and the world.

I was very disappointed that debate was limited on Barnwell, because this disallowed pertinent information, pro and con. With South Carolina having a high cancer rate, a high infant mortality rate, as well as a low educational status, I cannot vote making the State the dumping ground for the nation. Let's magnify the Greenville industrial area, Charleston's port city, and Myrtle Beach's beautiful seaside, and minify anything that is low level.

Rep. THEODORE A. BROWN

I am in opposition to this Bill. This Bill contains 3 items that I feel strongly about:

1. Barnwell

2. Funding for the Citadel Solution (i.e. The Faulkner Fund)

3. Resolution on the Confederate Flag.

Closure was invoked to silence members of this Body, to control what is said, what is shared with the public.

To John Q. Public, listening to me today, understand what was done in this Appropriation Bill: I see this Bill as analogous to a beautiful apple, juicy, red and shiny, but it has been poisoned, like that apple Snow White received from the wicked queen. And if we as a state accept this apple, this Appropriation Bill like Snow White, we too will fall asleep, oblivious to the harm to our environment Barnwell will cause.

Oblivious to the injustice inflicted on women in this State by the Citadel/Converse agreement.

Oblivious to the harm done to racial relations in S.C. Inflicted by the legislation to keep the Confederate flag flying in the face of a people who are descendents of slaves held hostage under this flag.

You were told that the Citadel/Converse Plan is fair, it is "not" fair to women.

You were told that the Confederate Flag flying over this State House is not divisive, it "does" divide us.

For these reasons I cannot vote for this Budget.

Rep. JOSEPH H. NEAL

While H. 3362 provides much needed funding for such items as higher education, K-12 public education and employee pay raises, I cannot in good conscience vote for legislation that sanctions discrimination, legitimatizes offensive symbols and jeopardizes South Carolina's environment.

This legislation provides recurring dollars to the Citadel to thwart efforts by Shannon Faulkner to become a member of the Corp of Cadets. State funds should not be spent to exclude persons, regardless of race, gender or physical capacity, from obtaining a quality education. If the Citadel wishes to remain single-gender then it should opt to become a private institution. This legislation sanctions discrimination and I cannot be a party to such.

Secondly, this legislation includes a permanent provision which makes the Confederate Flag a lasting fixture atop our State House. This flag has a place of honor in our past but not our present nor our future. Its placement atop our State House is offensive to a large segment of our population and, in my opinion, that is sufficient reason to remove it. More importantly, during this age if divisiveness and racial tension, I believe that all of South Carolina can be better served if the flag was provided a place of appropriate honor on our State House grounds or in a museum, not permanent residence atop the sovereign symbol of our State.

Thirdly, this legislation, in my opinion, endangers the future of our environment by extending the life of the Barnwell low-level radioactive waste site. South Carolina cannot afford to become the dumping ground for the nation's waste. Nor can we afford the long term environmental damage that burial of this waste will cause. Given the fact that the House of Representatives was not allowed the opportunity to thoroughly discuss the consequences of keeping Barnwell open, I cannot vote for H. 3362.

Therefore, I cannot vote for H. 3362, the General Appropriations Bill.

Rep. GILDA COBB-HUNTER

During the final week of the session and this extended session there have been at least seven attempts to resolve the House into a committee of the whole for the purpose of discussing the Barnwell issue. As you know, each of these were denied.

In my opinion, it was an issue then and now that the politics of the past on (Barnwell) would deliberate circumvent a full debate/discussion and would again wrap Chem-Nuclear's "Golden Calf" in a shroud of honey dipped/pork barrel illusionary programs and projects that would so appease a majority of us that the minority among us would be intimidated into complicity.

Those of you who voted against the "committee of the whole" maneuver used as a rationale that there would be ample time for full discussion during the debate on the conference report. But then today, you voted for cloture, which effectively limited debate.

You added insult to injury, subsequently. I did not speak on the report at all, but I assure you that my silence did not mean consent.

Today, June 13, 1995, I have consciously voted against the Appropriation Bill. For the record, the following concerns fueled my objections:

THE BUDGET

Fiscal conservatism has eluded the so-called conservatives. The commitment to down-size state government has failed. The campaign rhetoric of "less-spending and more accountability" had more to do with soundbite politics than sensible politics.

In fact, it appears that the conservatism talk was all about taking from the poor to give more to the rich, because that is precisely what has been done. This budget has grown by approximately two hundred forty-two million six hundred sixty plus dollars.

In the Friday, May 19th issue of The State, North Carolina's Governor Jim Hunt is quoted as saying, "We remain committed to fulfilling our end of the compact by licensing a site here, but we will not do so at the expense of public health and the environment."

I ask, if the Chem-Nuclear operation is so safe, why are other governors and governments so cautions about siting a facility?

If the radioactive dump business is so lucrative and so progressive, why are other governors and governments not competing for their share of this market?

Why is North Carolina so reluctant to accept Chem-Nuclear's site engineering but we continue to give them a vote of confidence as a respectfully and public service company?

CITADEL/CONVERSE

It is appalling that this legislature would conveniently find millions of dollars to fund discrimination at a state owned and operated institution of higher learning.

Forty years after Brown vs. the Board of Education our public monies - contributed to by men and women alike - are actually being used in court and legal actions to keep half of the population of the State from attending the Citadel.

This separate but equal proposal was wrong in the past and is still wrong today.

THE CONFEDERATE FLAG

Regrettably this Bill fuels the controversial Confederate Flag issue. Since 1962, this flag has flown illegally over the statehouse and the thought of it enjoying a continuum place of honor is repulsive.

The confederacy lost the War. I do not understand why we continue to celebrate this defeat. I do, however, understand that until we can put the past in the past, South Carolina and the South will continue to be the stepchild of the Nation.

There is not an army anywhere that does not lower the enemies' flag when the country has been conquered and the battle won.

The war is over, the South lost... let's move on.

In my opinion, this has been a mean and insensitive session. I pray you all a meaningful summer and fall and I look to see you whenever we meet again.

Rep. RALPH W. CANTY

| Printed Page 4780, June 13 | Printed Page 4800, June 13 |