Can't stand the heat? Stay away from 'kitchen sink' bill
FROM THE STATEHOUSE BY CLAY BARBOUR Of The Post and Courier Staff COLUMBIA--Tensions were high last week at the Statehouse as the war over the "kitchen sink" bill intensified. Members of the S.C. House of Representatives were angry with Gov. Mark Sanford over his threat of a lawsuit regarding the Life Sciences Act, a massive economic development bill that could bring millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs to the state. The governor, who considered the bill "pork barrel" legislation, was angry at the General Assembly for overriding his veto of the bill. And the Senate, well, they just wished someone noticed that they had grown an inch in the past year. All of this culminated in a closed-door meeting between the governor and about 40 members of the House on Wednesday. Press was not allowed into the meeting (and the door was too thick to overhear what was said), but according to those on the inside, it was a tense, sometimes contentious affair. A few hours later, Sanford canceled a news conference in which he was expected to announce his lawsuit and basically said he would let the legal issue rest for now. Taking no chances, House Ways and Means Chairman Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, reintroduced the Life Sciences Bill this week, one of the original pieces of legislation that became the kitchen sink bill. The bill originally was designed to provide research opportunities and economic development in biotechnology and related fields. Part of the original proposal would provide $250 million in funding for the state's research universities, a third of which would be available to the Medical University of South Carolina. During the bill's progress from the House to the Senate to conference committee, it became laden with more than 20 amendments. Harrell's reintroduction of the key legislation was meant to be an insurance policy for a pharmaceutical company considering a move to the Upstate. "This is to protect that economic development opportunity," Harrell said. "If a cloud forms over the Life Sciences Act again (i.e., the governor decides to sue again), we don't want this company to worry." The bill passed 109-0 Thursday and will be sent to the Senate this week. By the way, during Wednesday's meeting, the governor told House members that he did not blame them for the bobtailing that took place with life sciences. He blamed the Senate. Hearing of this, the Senate locked itself in its room, turned Lynyrd Skynyrd up really loud and refused to come out to supper. SAY WHAT? "Baseball is second only to sex in terms of interest to men. And I'm not going to come up here and talk about sex. That would be in poor taste. I'll stick to baseball." -- State Sen. John Kuhn, R-Charleston, during a filibuster on a primary seat belt law. Speaking of seat belts. "From the Statehouse" should probably start a running count of how many days the issue of seat belts has held the Senate hostage. For the past five weeks, a group of legislators led by Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, has kept the issue from a vote through diligent, if sometimes inane (see above), filibustering. A majority of senators approve of strengthening the existing law to make not wearing a seat belt a primary offense. In other words, a cop can stop you for it. But a minority of the Senate, led by McConnell, has all but killed the measure. Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, a supporter of the bill, has said it's pretty much over. "But I would not be surprised to see us continue this argument all the way through next week." Meanwhile, the House is snickering because the more "deliberative" body has let two bills -- seat belts and minibottles -- jam up the works. Standing in the wings are tort reform and the budget, both huge issues. On Thursday, the House finished business and took off on a self-imposed furlough. They will not return until April 13. Said Harrell, "We could work three weeks on and one week off and still get more accomplished than they do." BITS AND PIECES The House passed a bill Wednesday that, if made law, would require people convicted of certain felonies to have an identify code on their driver's license. The bill is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
|