South Dakota House of Representatives – Legislative Day 25

South Dakota House of Representatives – Legislative Day 25

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


is available on DVD. To order,
visit shopPBS.org or call
1-800-PLAY-PBS. is made possible in partWords by contributions to your
PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. YOU’RE WATCHING PBS Nathan: We’re the Knestricks,
and we have a five-year-old son named Landon. Landon chose PBS more than
us choosing it for him. Pearl Harbor. ristil And once he started watching
the show about the Arizona, he completely became fascinated. Everything that he learned
from the show, he continues to teach others about it as
well. And then his Christmas wish
this year was to meet Donald Stratton, one of the
survivors from the Arizona. Landon: That’s Donald Stratton,
and that’s me. Christina: He got to meet
his hero, finally face to face in person
in Washington DC. Donald: Good to see you, buddy.
How’ve you been? Nathan: It kind of touches
my heart to, to know that he cares and has that much
passion about that. Landon: This is for you. Donald: Thank you, big guy. Christina: I look at everything
that Landon has learned from PBS, and it’s immeasurable. Christina: Everybody is big
enough to do something. He is living proof of the
effect that PBS has had on his life. BE MORE PBS ♪♪>>”STATEHOUSE” PROGRAM FUNDING PROVIDED BY. THE SOUTH DAKOTA BAR FOUNDATION, THE EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE ARM OF SOUTH DAKOTA LAWYERS AND JUDGES.>>HELLO AND WELCOME TO SDPB’S GAVEL-TO-GAVEL COVERAGE OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON ANY OF THE BILLS PRESENTED TODAY OR THROUGHOUT THE SESSION, VISIT US ONLINE AT SD.NET. LET’S NOW GO TO COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪>>HOUSE WILL NOW COME TO ORDER. TODAY WE’LL BE LED IN PRAYER BY REVEREND SAM HINSKE OF THE FORT PIERRE ADMINISTERIAL ADMINISTRATION A WE’LL BE LED IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE BY REBECCA CLARK OF SIOUX FALLS AND AARON EKMAN OF CA HAVE OTHER. AND WE’LL ASK REVEREND SAM HENSCHEKE TO COME FORWARD AND LEAD US IN PRAYER.>>LET US PRAY. OH, LORD, GOD, I THANK YOU THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED FOR YOUR PEOPLE IN GIVING US GOOD GOVERNMENT. WITH THIS GREAT BLESSING, YOUR PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO THRIVE IN PEACE AND SECURITY. PLEASE GRANT WISDOM TO EACH OF THESE REPRESENTATIVES, GIVE THEM GOOD KNOWLEDGE AND DIRECTION ON HOW TO LEAD AND GUIDE YOUR PEOPLE. I PRAY IN JESUS’ NAME. AMEN.>>I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.>>CLERK WILL PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. [ CALLING ROLL ] Mr. SPEAKER, A QUORUM IS PRESENT.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS TIME WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES AND IF I COULD HAVE YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE, WE’RE GOING TO WELCOME THE NEW PAGES FOR THIS NEXT TWO-WEEK PERIOD OF TIME. AND WE’RE VERY GLAD THAT YOU’RE HERE, THANKFUL FOR THE WILLINGNESS THAT YOU’VE SHOWN TO SERVE THE LEGISLATURE IN THIS WAY. AND THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO DO IS HAVE YOU FACE FORWARD HERE TO THE PODIUM AND I’LL ASK YOU TO RECITE AFTER ME THE OATH OF OFFICE. SO IF YOU’D RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. I, STATE YOUR NAME. DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR… THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION… OF THE UNITED STATES… AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. AND WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE… THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE… OF PAGE. ACCORDING TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. [ Applause ]>>NOW, HAVING TAKEN THAT OATH, I’LL EXPECT THAT YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE READING OF THE CONSTITUTION WITHIN A DAY AND THE CONSTITUTION OF OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS BECAUSE IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT LONGER. SO PLEASE GO AHEAD AND READ THOSE AT YOUR LEISURE. APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL.>>Mr. SPEAKER, THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE RESPECTFULLY REPORTS THAT THE CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE HAS HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION THE HOUSE JOURNAL OF THE 24th DAY, ALL ERRORS, TYPOGRAPHICAL OR OTHERWISE, ARE DULY MARKED IN THE TEMPORARY JOURNAL FOR CORRECTION, AND WE HEREBY MOVE THE ADOPTION OF THE REPORT. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, STEVEN G. HAUGAARD, CHAIR.>>THAT MOTION HAVING BEEN PAID AND SECONDED, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES. NOW, I THINK WE WANT TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK AT THIS TIME. THERE ARE SOME FOLKS HERE THAT NEED TO MOVE OVER TO THE SENATE SID SO, REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN, IF YOU’D LIKE TO MAKE SOME INTRODUCTIONS.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE. GOVERNOR NOEM HAS DECLARED THIS WEEK AS SCHOOL BOARD RECOGNITION WEEK. ABOVE YOU IN THE GALLERY, ABOVE THE SPEAKER, IS THE PARKER SCHOOL BOARD AND THEIR SUPERINTENDENT DONOVAN DEBORE, THE PARKER SCHOOL BOARD IS THE RECIPIENT OF THE ASSOCIATE SCHOOL BOARD — SCHOOL BOARD AWARD OF EXCELLENCE FOR 2018. WOULD YOU PLEASE HELP ME RECOGNIZE THE PARKER SCHOOL BOARD AND ALL THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS HERE TODAY. [ Applause ]>>I’D JUST LIKE TO THANK, TOO, THE FARMERS UNION, THE E-30 GROUP THAT PROVIDED LUNCH TODAY. WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED THAT. IT WAS A GREAT LUNCH. YOU KNOW, IT’S NICE TO GET AN ACTUAL KIND OF HOME-COOKED MEAL. SO WE APPRECIATE THAT. REPRESENTATIVE YORK. [ Indiscernible ] GRANTED.>>TODAY ON BEHALF OF MY DISTRICT AND ALSO LANA GREENFIELD, WE’D LIKE TO MAKE WELCOME FORMER REPRESENTATIVE AND HIS LOVELY WIFE, TAMI.>>WELCOME. [ Applause ] REPRESENTATIVE SCHOENFISH.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.>>GRANTED.>>TODAY WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS. THEY PROVIDED LUNCH FOR US ACROSS THE STREET. SOCIAL WORKERS ARE THE LARGEST GROUP OF MENTAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS IN THE UNITED STATES. THE SOCIAL WORK PROFESSION IS DEDICATED TO MEETING THE BASIC NEEDS OF ALL PEOPLE. MARCH IS NATIONAL SOCIAL WORKER MONTH. INCLUDED WITH THE SOCIAL WORKERS IS BROOKE, DIRECTOR OF READY TO RUN SOUTH DAKOTA, A NONPARTISAN CAMPAIGN AND LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM FOR WOMEN. HER NIECE, TORE REPUBLICAN KELLEN, IS SPENDING HER DAY OFF AND BIRTHDAY WITH HER AUNT AND GRANDMA HERE IN PIERRE. LET’S WELCOME THEM. TORREN. [ Applause ]>>REPRESENTATIVE McCLEEREY.>>PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.>>GRANTED.>>THANK YOU. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, UP ABOVE THE SPEAKER IS ONE OF OUR BEST, YOU MIGHT SAY, FROM MY DISTRICT, OUTSTANDING SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, WHO IS BEING RECOGNIZED, DENISE LUKEAMEYER, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND. THANK YOU. [ Applause ]>>REPRESENTATIVE SABA.>>Mr. SPEAKER, POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, PLEASE.>>GRANTED.>>I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY SON IN THE GALLERY, DANIEL SABA. DANIEL IS WORKING IN WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND HE FAIRLY RECENTLY RETURNED FROM SERVICE IN THE GULF, SERVING WITH THE UNITED STATES ARMY IN BAHA RAIN.>>WELCOME, DAVID. [ Applause ]>>I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF MEETING HIM EARLIER. FINE YOUNG MAN. APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE, TOO. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNOR.>>Mr. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOU THAT ON FEBRUARY 14th, 2019, I APPROVED HOUSE BILLS 1008, 1020, 1024, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1052 12K3 1075 AND HAVE THE SAME — AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, KRISTY NOEM, GOVERNOR. ALSO, Mr. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOU THAT ON FEBRUARY 19th, 2019, I APPROVED HOUSE BILLS 1010, 1027, 1064, 1098 AND 1121. AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, KRISTI NOEM, GOVERNOR.>>REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES.>>Mr. SPEAKER, THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE RESPECTFULLY REPORTS THAT THE OFFICE OF ENGROSSING AND ENROLLING HAS CAREFULLY COMPARED HOUSE BILLS 1059, 1068, 1072, 1077, 1092 AND 1124 AND FINDS THE SAME CORRECTLY ENROLLED. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, STEVEN G. HAUGAARD, CHAIR. ALSO, Mr. SPEAKER, THE COMMITTEE ON — JOINT COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS RESPECTFULLY REPORTS THAT HOUSE FILES 1255, 1258, AND 1262 DO PASS, RESPECTFULLY CHRIS G. KARR, CO-CHAIR. ALSO THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES RESPECTFULLY REPORTS THAT HOUSE BILL 1089 BE TABLED. RESPECTFULLY THOMAS G. BRUNNER, CHAIR. THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES RESPECTFULLY REPORTS THAT HOUSE BILL 1209 DO PASS AS AMENDED. HOUSE BILL 1190 DO PASS AS AMENDED. AND HOUSE BILL 1213 WAS DEFERRED TO THE 41st LEGISLATIVE DAY. RESPECTFULLY, KEVIN D. JENSEN, CHAIR. ALSO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPECTFULLY REPORTS THAT SENATE BILL 100 DO PASS AND SENATE BILL 73 DO PASS AS AMENDED. RESPECTFULLY, HERMAN OTTEN, CHAIR.>>MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, I HAVE THE HONOR TO TRANSMIT HEREWITH SENATE BILLS 124, 149 AND 164 WHICH HAVE PASSED THE SENATE AND THE FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED. ALSO, M I HAVE THE HONOR TO RETURN HEREWITH HOUSE BILLS 1059, 1068, 1072, 1077, 1092 AND 1124 WHICH HAVE PASSED THE SENATE WITHOUT CHANGE. RESPECTFULLY, KAY JOHNSON, SECRETARY.>>MOTIONS.>>THE SPEAKER DECLARE THAT HOUSE BILLS 1112, 1134 AND HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1002 WERE WITHDRAWN AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRIME SPONSORS PURSUANT TO JOINT RULE 6B-1.1.>>CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.>>REPRESENTATIVE QUALM MOVES THAT THE REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ON HOUSE BILL 1229 AND SENATE BILL 72 AS FOUND ON PAGE 404 OF THE HOUSE JOURNAL, ALSO MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS ON HOUSE BILL 1080 AS FOUND ON PAGE 405 AND HOUSE BILL 1187 AS FOUND ON PAGE 406 OF THE HOUSE JOURNAL. ALSO STATE AFFAIRS ON HOUSE BILL 1186 AS FOUND ON PAGE 407. AND HOUSE BILL 1094 FOUND ON PAGE 407 AND HOUSE BILL 1178 AS FOUND ON PAGE 412 OF THE HOUSE JOURNAL BE ADOPTED.>>SECOND.>>THAT MOTION HAVING BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES. FIRST READING OF SENATE BILLS.>>SENATE BILL 124, AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY RETAIL LICENSEES. SENATE BILL 149, TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT AUTHORIZED FOR CERTAIN GRANTEES AND TO AUTHORIZE A BRAND REGISTRATION APPLICATION FEE AND SENATE BILL 164, AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN MISSING AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS PERSONS.>>SPEAKER HAS ASSIGNED SENATE BILL 124 TO COMMERCE. SENATE BILL 149 TO AG AND NATURAL RESOURCES. AND SENATE BILL 164 TO STATE AFFAIRS. SECOND READING OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS.>>HOUSE BILL 1201, AN ACT TO REVISE PROVISIONS REGARDING GROUP PHEASANT HUNTS FOR DISABLED VETERANS AND HOUSE BILL 1189, AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERIOD TO SECURE CERTAIN CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS.>>ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH NO DISSENTING VOTES OR OPPOSITION ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DEBATE. HOWEVER, QUESTIONS MAY BE ASKED OF THE SPONSOR. THIS IS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1201 AND HOUSE BILL 1189. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS? HEARING NO QUESTIONS, QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE IS FINAL PASSAGE OF THE BILLS ON CONSENT CALENDAR. THOSE IN FAVOR VOTE AYE, THOSE OPPOSED VOTE NO. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE AND MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE. REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN.>>PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, PLEASE.>>GRAND.>>THANK YOU. I’VE GOT A COUPLE OF THEM TODAY. SO FIRST I WANT TO INTRODUCE MY LITTLE BUDDY, LUCY, SHE’S MY GUEST TODAY. AND SHE IS JUST ENJOYING THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. IF WE CAN ALL GIVE LUCY A HAND. [ Applause ] SHE’S IN FIRST GRADE. AND THEN LUCY IS HERE BECAUSE SHE IS HERE WITH LEAD SOUTH DAKOTA, LEADERS ENGAGED AND DETERMINED, WHICH IS A NONPROFIT THAT STARTED IN 2016. I’M A BOARD MEMBER OF LED AND WE’VE GOT OVER 2,000 MEMBERS IN OUR ORGANIZATION. WE’VE DONE OVER 50 TRAININGS AND OUR MISSION IS TO GET PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS, ESPECIALLY WOMEN. SO THAT’S ACTUALLY WHY I’M HERE TODAY, I GOT INVOLVED BECAUSE OF L.E.D., SO, TO EVERYBODY IN THE ORANGE SHIRTS, I THINK THEY’RE ON BOTH SIDES HERE, TODAY IS BRING YOUR GIRL TO PIERRE DAY. SO WE ARE TRYING TO EMPOWER THESE GIRLS AND HELP THEM REALIZE THAT THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THAT THEY WANT AND THEY CAN BECOME LEGISLATORS SOMEDAY, WHICH IS WHAT WE’RE HOPING FOR. SO, WE’RE REALLY PROUD TO HAVE L.E.D. HERE TODAY. THEY HAD LUNCH FOR US JUST A COUPLE OF BLOCKS AWAY. SO THANKS TO L.E.D. FOR BEING HERE. I AM HONORED TO INTRODUCE YOU.>>WELCOME. [ Applause ] REPRESENTATIVE DUBA.>>PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.>>GRANTED.>>I AM PLEASED TO HAVE SAGE ROACH SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO ME TODAY, ONE OF THE FUTURE LEADERS. SHE’S A SIXTH GRADER AT EDISON MIDDLE SCHOOL IN SIOUX FALLS.>>WELCOME. [ Applause ] L.E.A.D.>>REPRESENTATIVE SMITH.>>PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.>>GRANTED.>>THANK YOU. I ALSO HAVE A GUEST HERE WITH ME TODAY. MEGAN — SORRY — MEGAN IS HER SISTER — EMMA FORESTER IS HERE. SHE’S AN EIGHTH GRADER AT EDISON MIDDLE SCHOOL. IF YOU’D ALL PLEASE WELCOME HER TO THE FLOOR.>>WELCOME. [ Applause ]>>REPRESENTATIVE HEALY.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE. I ALSO HAVE A SPECIAL GUEST HERE. THIS IS PIYA, SHE IS A SECOND GRADER AT THE ROBERT FROST CHALLENGE CENTER.>>WELCOME HERE. [ Applause ]>>REPRESENTATIVE PERI — REPRESENTATIVE PERRY.>>Mr. SPEAKER, PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, PLEASE.>>GRANTED.>>OKAY. BOTH OF MY LITTLE GUESTS ARE HERE NOW. AND FOR A MINUTE THERE, ONE OF THEM WASN’T IN THE ROOM SO I WAS HOLDING OFF ON GETTING THE ATTENTION HERE. BUT I’D LIKE YOU TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE A BIRTHDAY THAT WE CELEBRATED THIS WEEKEND FOR CALEB FINCK AND ALSO FOR MARK KILLED SON, SO WE’RE GOING TO SING HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO THOSE TWO PEOPLE. MARK WILLADSEN. SO, SOUTH DAKOTA HAPPY BIRTHDAY IS NOT SUNG WITH THE QUIET SOUND, IT’S SUNG WITH THE ROBUST SOUND AND WE’RE GOING TO GO AT THE END INSTEAD OF SINGING TO BOTH OF THEM, IT’S GOING TO BE MARK AND KALEB, MARK AND KALEB, I KNOW THIS IS TOUGH INSTRUCTIONS, BUT HERE WE GO.>>SHOULD WE HAVE THE BIRTHDAY BOYS STAND AND EVERYONE ELSE SIT? ♪ HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU ♪ ♪ HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU ♪ ♪ HAPPY BIRTHDAY DEAR MARK AND KALEB ♪ ♪ HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU ♪ [ Applause ]>>WE HAVE A LITTLE TROUBLE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS.>>Mr. SPEAKER.>>YES.>>IF I COULD HAVE PERSONAL PRIVILEGE ONE MORE TIME.>>PLEASE, GO AHEAD.>>THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS AN EXECUTIVE PROCLAMATION FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR. AND IT IS A LITTLE LENGTHY BUT IT’S ALL ON ONE SHEET SO IT’S NOT TOO BAD. WHEREAS, SOUTH DAKOTA AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY IS CRITICALLY VITAL TO THE FISCAL HEALTH OF OUR GREAT STATE. WHEREAS, SOUTH DAKOTA’S ETHANOL INDUSTRY IS THE BACKBONE TO OUR AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY. WHEREAS, SOUTH DAKOTA’S CLEAN AIR AND RURAL LIVELIHOOD ARE THE CORNERSTONE TO OUR HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE. WHEREAS, GLACIER LAKE ENERGY LAUNCHED THE E-30 CHALLENGE IN WATERTOWN, SOUTH DAKOTA, IN 2016 AND ABERDEEN IN 2018, CHALLENGING THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM THAT STANDARD VEHICLES CAN ONLY OPERATE ON BLENDS OF UP TO 10 OR 15% ETHANOL. WHEREAS, THE PURPOSE OF THE E-30 CHALLENGE IS TO PROMOTE HIGHER BLENDS OF ETHANOL TO PROVE — IMPROVE THE STATE’S AIR QUALITY AND CHANGE CONSUMERS’ FUEL OF CHOICE TO PREMIUM E-30 IN ANY VEHICLE. WHEREAS, PREMIUM E-30 IS A 30% BLEND OF ETHANOL WITH AN OCTANE RATING OF 94, WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THE PREMIUM GASOLINE WITH AN OCTANE RATING OF 91, MAKING PREMIUM E-30 A SUPERIOR FUEL. WHEREAS, PREMIUM E-30 IS A CLEANER BURNING ALTERNATIVE TO THE STANDARD GASOLINE WITH LOWER CARBON EMISSIONS AND LOWER CANCER-CAUSING CARCINOGENS AND TOXINS THAN GASOLINE. WHEREAS, CONSUMERS SAVE MORE ON THEIR HARD-EARNED DOLLARS ON EVERY TANK WHEN FUELING WITH PREMIUM E-30. WHEREAS, NO KNOWN MECHANICAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE USE OF PREMIUM E-30. WHEREAS, SINCE THE LAUNCHING OF THE E-30 CHALLENGE, NEARLY FOUR MILLION GALLONS OF PREMIUM E-30 HAVE BEEN SOLD IN WATERTOWN AND ABERDEEN, WHICH IS AN AVERAGE RATE OF ABOUT 20 MILES PER GALLON, SO WE’VE COVERED NEARLY 80 MILLION MILES. WHEREAS, SOUTH DAKOTA’S HISTORIC GOVERNOR KRISTI NOEM HAS COMMITTED TO ALL THOSE POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES BY FUELING THE STATE FLEET WITH PREMIUM E-30, FURTHER PROMOTING SOUTH DAKOTA AGRICULTURAL AND ETHANOL INDUSTRY AND LEADING THE WAY FOR ALL AMERICANS TOWARD THE HOME-GROWN FUELS AND A BETTER AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. GOVERNOR NOEM SIGNED THIS INTO LAW AND PROCLAIMS THIS AS PREMIUM E-30 DAY, FEBRUARY 19th, 2019. AND THIS IS SIGNED BY OUR GOVERNOR NOEM AND ATTESTED BY STEVE BARNETT, SECRETARY OF STATE. WE SHOULD GIVE A ROUND OF APPLAUSE TO THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH DAKOTA AND E-30. [ Applause ]>>AND I PROBABLY NEGLECTED BEFORE, THE FARMERS UNION MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE YET, IF YOU’D PLEASE RISE. ARE THEY GONE ALREADY? THERE’S AT LEAST ONE MEMBER BACK THERE, A FEW OTHERS. THEY’RE THE ONES THAT SPONSORED LUNCH TODAY AND SERVED US. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DO. [ Applause ]>>REPRESENTATIVES DEUTSCH, DAVID JOHNSON, SABA, WEISS AND YORK. WIESE.>>REPRESENTATIVE McCLEEREY.>>PERSONAL PRIVILEGE AGAIN, PLEASE.>>YES, GRAND.>>TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, WE HAVE FORMER LEGISLATIVE MEMBERS HERE, UP ABOVE TO MY LEFT, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE, I BELIEVE, JIM BERG AND DAVID SIGESTED, IF YOU WELCOME THEM, PLEASE.>>WELCOME. [ Applause ]>>REPRESENTATIVE SABA. Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, YAYS, 67, EXCUSED THREE.>>CONSENT BILLS HAVING RECEIVED A MAJORITY VOTE, THE BILLS ARE PASSED. ANY QUESTIONS REGARD TO THE TITLES? IS HEARING NONE, THE TITLES ARE DEEMED CORRECT. AND IS Dr. KIDWHY HERE, PLEASE? WAY BACK THERE. I BELIEVE YOU WERE HERE ABOUT A WEEK OR TWO AGO, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO WE APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. LET ME JUST READ THE INTRODUCTION FOR Dr. FATIMA KIDWAY, SHE’S FROM ABERDEEN, THIS IS PART OF THE STATE-SPONSORED DOCTORS DAY PROGRAM THROUGH THE SOUTH DAKOTA STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. TODAY’S DOCTOR OF THE DAY IS Dr. KIDWAY AND SHE IS A HOSPITALIST AT AVERA St. LUKE’S IN ABERDEEN. Dr. KIDWAY RECEIVED HER MEDICAL DEGREE IN 1995 IN PAKISTAN AND COMPLETED HER RESIDENCY IN GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN. AND A FELLOWSHIP IN GERIATRIC MEDICINE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA. Dr. KIDWAY IS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY. [ Applause ] SECOND READING OF HOUSE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS.>>REPRESENTATIVE QUALM MOVES THAT HOUSE BILL 1144 BE PLACED TO FOLLOW HOUSE BILL 1176 ON TODAY’S CALENDAR.>>SECOND.>>THAT MOTION HAVING BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES.>>REPRESENTATIVE QUALM MOVES THAT HOUSE BILLS 1237 AND 1238 BE DEFERRED TO WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20th, 2019, THE 26th LEGISLATIVE DAY.>>THAT MOTION HAVING BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES.>>REPRESENTATIVE QUALM MOVES THAT HOUSE BILL 1250 BE DEFERRED TO THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21st, 2019, THE 27th LEGISLATIVE DAY.>>SECOND.>>AND THAT MOTION HAVING BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES. SLIGHT OPPOSITION THERE.>>HOUSE BILL 1122, AN ACT TO REVISE REFERENCES TO PERSONS WHO ARE DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING.>>HOUSE BILL 1122, HAVING HAD ITS SECOND READING IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION, FINAL PASSAGE. ARE THERE ANY REMARKS?>>Mr. SPEAKER.>>REPRESENTATIVE HEALY.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, TODAY I BRING YOU HOUSE BILL 1122. THIS IS A BILL THAT SIMPLY CLEANS UP STATUTES THAT MENTION “HEARING IMPAIRED” AND REPLACES THE LANGUAGE WITH”HARD OF HEARING OR DEAF.” THE TERM “HEARING IMPAIRED” IS VIEWED AS NEGATIVE. IT FOCUSES ON WHAT A PERSON CANNOT DO RATHER THAN WHAT THEY CAN DO. IT SAYS THE STANDARD OF HEARING AND ANYTHING DIFFERENT IS IMPAIRED, SUBSTANDARD AND DAMAGED. IT IMPLIES THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE FIXED, IF POSSIBLE. OVER THE YEARS, THE MOST COMMONLY ACCEPTED TERMS WITHIN THE DEAF COMMUNITY, WHEN REFERRING TO THEMSELVES IS DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING. DEAF OR HARD-OF-HEARING PERSONS SEE THEIR DEAFNESS AS A SOURCE OF POSITIVE IDENTITY AND PRIDE. THIS BILL IS ABOUT RESPECTING THEIR COMMUNITY AND THEIR CULTURE. THEY’RE TELLING US WHAT IS AN ACCEPTED WAY OF REFERRING TO THEM. THIS BODY HAS AFFIRMATIVELY■■ RESPONDED TO OTHER PORTIONS OF THE DISABILITY — TO OTHER PORTIONS OF THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY, WHO HAVE SOUGHT SIMILAR CHANGES IN THE PAST. I WOULD URGE YOUR SUPPORT ON HOUSE BILL 1122 AND VOTE YES. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS REGARDING HOUSE BILL 1122? FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE MULALLY.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. QUESTION FOR THE SPONSOR.>>PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION.>>IF YOU’RE WILLING TO CHANGE FROM “HEARING IMPAIRED” TO”HARD OF HEARING,” WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THE SPEECH IMPAIRED AND THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED ON THE SAME BILL? BECAUSE THOSE ARE NOT ADDRESSED AND THEY’RE STILL SAYING “IMPAIRED.” SO THE HEARING HAS MORE CLOUT THAN SPEECH OR VISUAL?>>REPRESENTATIVE HEALY, DO YOU WISH TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION?>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. YES, THIS DID COME UP IN COMMITTEE. AND SOME INDIVIDUALS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE TERM “IMPAIRMENT.” BUT THE DEAF COMMUNITY DOES NOT PREFER TO BE CALLED HEARING IMPAIRED. THEY WOULD PREFER TO BE CALLED “HARD OF HEARING OR DEAF.” THAT IS HOW THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND, SO, WHILE OTHER PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH THE WORD “IMPAIRMENT,”■)Rj CULTURE IS NOT. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS? ANY FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1122? HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS, QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE, FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 1122, THOSE IN FAVOR VOTE YAY, THOSE OPPOSED VOTE NAY, THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE AND THE MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>.>>HOUSE BILL 1122, HAVING RECEIVED MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS ELECT IS HEREBY DECLARED PASSED. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TITLE? HEARING NONE, THE TITLE’S DEEMED CORRECT.>>HOUSE BILL 1087, AN ACT TO PROMOTE INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY AT CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER ED.>>HOUSE BILL 1087, HAVING HAD ITS SECOND READING, IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION, FINAL PASSAGE. ARE THERE ANY REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE PETERSON.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE BODY. HOUSE BILL 1087 WAS HEARD IN HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE AND WAS PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE ON A FAVORABLE 9-6 VOTE. AFTER PASSAGE, THE GOVERNOR REACHED OUT TO EXPRESS HER SUPPORT OF THE CONCEPT OF THE BILL. IN ADDITION, THE BOARD OF REGENTS APPROACHED US ABOUT WORKING TOGETHER ON THE BILL. WITH THAT, WE BEGAN MEETING WITH THE GOVERNOR’S STAFF AND THE BOARD OF REGENTS TO SEE IF WE COULD MAKE THE BILL BETTER FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. THE GOVERNOR ASKED IF WE WOULD CONSIDER REMOVING THE CIVICS TEST REQUIREMENT AS IT SOMEWHAT OVERLAPPED WITH OTHER BILLS THAT WERE ALREADY IN PROCESS. THE BOARD OF REGENTS’ BIGGEST OBJECTION WAS THE HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT COURSE REQUIREMENT. IN GOOD FAITH, WE ELIMINATED BOTH THE CIVICS TEST AND THE CIVICS COURSE REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS MADE SOME STREAMLINING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE FREE SPEECH PROVISIONS. WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME, PRESERVING THE INTENT OF THE BILL. WE PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN LAWFUL EXPRESSION ON OUR PUBLIC UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES. I’M PLEASED TO SAY THAT HAVING ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS OF THE GOVERNOR, I CAN TELL YOU THAT SHE FULLY SUPPORTS PASSAGEF HOUSE BILL 1087. SO WITH THAT, LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE BILL DOES. FIRST, IT ELIMINATES SO-CALLED FREE SPEECH ZONES WHERE COLLEGES LIMIT FREE SP TO CERTAIN SPOTS ON CAMPUS. SECOND, IT REQUIRES THAT STUDENTS AND STAFF AT OUR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ARE MADE FULLY AWARE OF THEIR RIGHTS AND WHAT THE CAMPUS POLICIES ARE. IT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS BY ENSURING THEY’RE TREATED EQUALLY. IT PROVIDES ACCOUNTABILITY BY REQUIRING THE REGENTS TO REPORT TO US WHAT THEY’RE DOING TO PROMOTE FREE SPEECH AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY ON CAMPUSES AND ALSO ASKS THEM TO REPORT TO US ANY ISSUES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE THE PRIOR YEAR ON CAMPUSES. FINALLY, IT MAKES SURE THE UNIVERSITIES HAVE POLICIES IN PLACE TO FOSTER THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS EVEN THOSE DEEMED CONTROVERSIAL AT TIMES. THIS IS A CORE CONCEPT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF OUR CONSTITUTION. I WOULD URGE A GREEN VOTE ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1087?>>Mr. SPEAKER.>>REPRESENTATIVE REED.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I’M GOING TO ASK FOR THE BODY TO RESIST THIS MOTION TO APPROVE THIS BILL. AND I HAVE ONE ISSUE IN THIS BILL THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT AND THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD LOOK AT. AND IF YOU, ON THE FIRST SECTION IT DEFINES HARASSMENT.>>LET ME JUST CLARIFY, TOO, THIS IS AS AMENDED FROM LAST WEEK.>>RIGHT. AND I’M SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT, THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER.>>THANK YOU.>>IF YOU LOOK AT ITEM 4 UNDERNEATH SECTION 1, IT DEFINES HARASSMENT. AND IT DEFINES IT AS CONDUCT THAT IS UNWELCOME, SO SEVERE, PERVASIVE AND OBJECTIVELY OFFENSIVE THAT A STUDENT IS EFFECTIVELY DENIED EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES OR BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THE INSTITUTION. WHAT I THINK IS WRONG WITH THIS STATEMENT IS THAT IT USES THE WORD “AND OBJECTIVELY OFFENSIVE” INSTEAD OF”OR.” THERE HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES ON CAMPUS THAT ITEMS HAVE BEEN OR SPEECH, SIGNS, HAVE JUST BEEN OBJECTIVELY OFFENSIVE. AND THIS WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT TO BE CONSIDERED HARASSMENT. I THINK “OR”IS A MUCH BETTER WORD TO BE USED IN T AND, ALSO, IT’S AN ARGUMENT THAT HAPPENS THAT IS GOING ON EVEN WITHOUT THOSE THAT SUPPORT FREE SPEECH, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE OR AND AND. I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO RESIST THIS MOTION BECAUSE I DON’T LIHE WAY THAT HARASSMENT IS BEING DEFINED. THANK YOU.>>Mr. SPEAKER.>>THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE QUALM.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. WELL, AS THE GOOD REPRESENTATIVE FROM BROOKINGS COUNTY SAID, THE “AND” OR”OR” THAT’S A BIG DISCUSSION, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH THAT, IT’S ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT. BUT I MAINTAIN THAT IT SHOULD BE “AND” FOR THE REASON THAT IF YOU MAKE ONE STATEMENT THAT SOMEBODY CONSIDERED HARASSMENT, THEY CAN GO AFTER YOU FOR THAT. THIS MAKES IT A LITTLE BROADER. I THINK EVERYBODY HAS SAID ONE THING ONE TIME OR ANOTHER THAT MAYBE YOU REGRETTED. BUT IF IT’S PERVASIVE, IT’S ONGOING, YEAH, THEN YOU PROBABLY SHOULD GO AFTER THEM, BUT I WOULD MAINTAIN THAT THIS IS A GOOD BILL, THAT IT DOES — ACCOMPLISHES WHAT WE WANT IT TO DO, IT MAKES WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS TRUE WITH THIS BILL. SO I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR GREEN VOTE. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1087? REPRESENTATIVE RING.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. Mr. SPEAKER AND FELLOW LEGISLATORS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO RESIST THIS BILL. IT’S A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT DOESN’T EXIST IN SOUTH DAKOTA AND IT ENCROACHES ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS. I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES OF PEOPLE TRYING TO RESTRICT SPEECH, SHOUTING DOWN SPEAKERS AND DISINVITING SPEAKERS. MOST OF THESE HAVE BEEN ON THE COASTS IN THE ELITE UNIVERSITIES, MOSTLY PRIVATE, AND A FEW LARGE STATE SCHOOLS. IT HASN’T HAPPENED IN OUR STATE UNIVERSITIES AND ISN’T LIKELY TO HAPPEN HERE. THIS BILL IS SIMPLY AN OVERREACTION. THE REGENTS AND THEIR STAFF AND THE INDIVIDUAL UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE WORKED HARD TO UPDATE THEIR POLICIES TO PROTECT ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AT THE UNIVERSITIES. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO THE REGENTS. LET’S LET THEM DO THEIR JOB. SECTION 5 OF THE BILL UNNECESSARILY — REQUIRES UNNECESSARY, TIME-CONSUMING, EXPENSIVE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT JUST AREN’T NEEDED. I’LL LET YOU READ IT YOURSELF. THIS IS AS GOOD AN EXAMPLE OF MICROMANAGING AS I’VE EVER SEEN. BUT THE REAL REASON I’M OPPOSED TO THIS, THE MAIN REASON I’M OPPOSED TO THIS IS IT SIMPLY ISN’T NECESSARY. IN MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF FAIRLY CLOSE INVOLVEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA, I’VE ATTENDED LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PRESENTATIONS, SPEECHES, LECTURES, PANEL DISCUSSIONS, DEBATES, YOU NAME IT, I’VE SEEN AND HEARD MANY NATIONALLY KNOWN FIGURES, AS WELL AS LOCAL SPEAKERS AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. I’VE SPOKEN PERSONALLY ON, I THINK, ALL OF THE REGENT UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES PUBLICLY, EXCEPT MINES, SOMEHOW I’VE MISSED MINES. MAYBE I’M NOT SCIENTIFIC ENOUGH. IN ALL THAT TIME — WELL, OKAY. WHEN THE COLLEGE OF REPUBLICANS AND COLLEGE DEMOCRATS GET TOGETHER FOR THEIR ANNUAL DEBATE, THERE MIGHT BE A FEW FRIENDLY JIBES FROM THE AUDIENCE. BUT THEY’RE FRIENDLY JIBES, THEY’RE COMMENTS AMONG FRIENDS. I SUSPECT THEY GO OUT FOR REFRESHMENTS TOGETHER AFTERWARDS. OTHER THAN THAT, ONCE IN 40 YEARS HAVE I HEARD ANYONE SHOUTED DOWN. BACK IN THE ’80s, A MISSIONARY WHO WAS SPEAKING AGAINST OUR POLICY IN CENTRAL AMERICA WAS YELLED AT. HE CERTAINLY WASN’T STOPPED FROM SPEAKING. IF ANYTHING, THE FACT THAT HE WAS YELLED AT A COUPLE TIMES PROBABLY STRENGTHENED HIS CASE BECAUSE IT GAVE HIM SOMETHING TO RESPOND TO. THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE YELLING, I RECOGNIZE ONE OF THEM. HE WAS A FAIRLY WELL-KNOWN PERSON FROM YANKTON. THE OTHER TWO WERE PEOPLE THAT I DID NOT KNOW. I’M SURE THEY WEREN’T FROM THE UNIVERSITY. WITHOUT EXCEPTION, I’VE NEVER SEEN ANYONE INTERRUPTED, EVEN BRIEFLY, MUCH LESS STOPPED, SHOUTED DOWN DURING ANY KIND OF PRESENTATION. MANY OF THE SPEAKERS WERE WELL-KNOWN. GERALD FORD, WILLIAM BUCKLEY, WALTER CRONKITE, AL NEUHARTH, GARRISON KEILLOR, TOM BROKAW, OF COURSE, ALL OF OUR NATIONAL FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS, I COULD GO ON. AT USD, WE EVEN INVITE RUSSIAN AGENTS, RUSSIAN AGENTS BEFORE SHE WAS ACCUSED, OF COURSE. DAVID HORWITZ SPOKE AT USD. BEFORE HE TRAVELED AROUND CRITICIZING MUSLIMS, HE TRAVELED AROUND CRITICIZING COLLEGE PROFESSORS. AFTER HE HAD ONE TO USD — AFTER HE HAD BEEN TO USD, HE WROTE IN ONE OF HIS NEWSLETTERS, HE DESCRIBED HIS SPEAKING TOUR AND SINGLED OUT USD AS THE ONE PLACE WHERE HE FOUND HIS WORD A HANDFUL OF EITHER CONSERVATIVES OR REPUBLICANS, HE SEEMS TO USE THE WORDS INTERCHANGEABLY. I DON’T KNOW WHO HE TALKED TO AT USD. I KNOW HE DIDN’T TALK TO ME. I’M PRETTY SURE HE DIDN’T TALK TO THE BUSINESS SCHOOL. I COULD HAVE FOUND HIM HALF A HANDFUL OF CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS JUST ON THE ECONOMICS FACULTY. [ Indiscernible ]>>YIELDS.>>ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THIS SEEMS TO TRY TO ADDRESS IS STUDENTS WHO ARE TOO SENSITIVE TO OPINIONS WOULD DISAGREE, I THINK THE TERM THAT’S SOMETIMES USED IS SNOWFLAKES. I DIDN’T FIND THAT IN ANY OF MY CLASSES. AND I PROBABLY GAVE STUDENTS AS MUCH OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE OFFENSE AS ANYBODY. I TAUGHT A COURSE IN THE HISTORY OF ECONOMICS. IT RANGED FROM ADAM SMITH TO CARL MARX FROM MILTON FRIEDMAN TOON KENNETH GAL BREATH, FROM THE INSTITUTIONAL SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS TO THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS. I TAUGHT COURSES IN DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, WITH PEOPLE AS DIVERSE AS JOHN RAWLS, WHO’S PROBABLY AS AN ADVOCATE OF AS STRONG REDISTRIBUTION POLICIES AS I’VE EVER ENCOUNTERED TO ROBERT NOSICK WHO WROTE THAT QUOTE, ALL TAXATION IS SLAVERY, UNQUOTE. I TAUGHT STUDENTS FROM ACROSS THE CAMPUS, NOT JUST THE BUSINESS SCHOOL. HONOR SEMINARS AND WHAT HAVE YOU. IF THE BEHAVIORS THAT THIS BILL TRIES TO FORSTALL EVER OCCUR ON ONE OF OUR CAMPUS, MY EXPERIENCE SAYS IT’S HIGHLY UNLIKELY, I TRUST THE REGENTS AND THE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIONS TO DEAL WITH IT FAIRLY AND COMPETENTLY AND STRONGLY. THIS IS A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT SIMPLY DOESN’T EXIST. PLEASE VOTE RED.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1087? REPRESENTATIVE DEUTSCH.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. QUESTION FOR THE SPONSOR.>>PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION.>>CORRECT ME IF I HEARD THIS WRONG. THE GOVERNOR SUPPORTS THIS BILL AS WELL AS THE REGENTS? THANK YOU.>>DO YOU WISH TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?>>YES. THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. THE GOVERNOR SUPPORTS THE BILL. WE SAT DOWN WITH THE GOVERNOR AND THE BOARD OF REGENTS IN GOOD FAITH TO TRY TO WORK OUT A COMPROMISE. WE CHANGED O BILL, WE TOOK IT FROM AN EIGHT-PAGE BILL TO A FOUR-PAGE BILL. WE ELIMINATED TWO SECTIONS THAT THEY SAID WERE THE MOST OBJECTIONABLE, THAT THE BOARD OF REGENTS SAID WERE THE MOST OBJECTIONABLE, AS WELL AS STREAMLINED SEVERAL OTHER SECTIONS. THEY CAME TO THE TABLE WITH NOTHING. THEY OFFERED NO COMPROMISE. AND WHEN THEY WEREN’T HAPPY WITH ALL THAT WE HAD DONE, THEY PUSHED AWAY FROM THE TABLE AND SAID, NO, WE DON’T SUPPORT THE BILL.>>DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE OLSON.>>THANK YOU. I WAS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT HEARD THIS TESTIMONY. AND I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT A FEW THINGS ABOUT WHAT WE HEARD. FROM THE PEOPLE WHO WERE IN FAVOR OF THIS, THERE WERE NOT SPECIFIC EXAMPLES IN WHICH THEIR RIGHTS HAD BEEN VIOLATED OR SITUATIONS COULDN’T BE RESOLVED AT THEIR SCHOOL. WE ALSO HEARD THAT THE BOARD OF REGENTS HAS IMPLEMENTED POLICIES IN WHICH THEY’RE HANDLING THIS. SO THE QUESTION I ASK IS, IS THE LAW — IS CODIFICATION NECESSARY? AND I DON’T THINK IT IS. WHEN YOU HAVE A PROCESS THAT HAS HANDLED THIS, WE’VE WORKED WITH THE BOARD OF REGENTS, THEY’VE LISTENED, WE, IN FACT, HAD STUDENT GROUPS AT MULTIPLE UNIVERSITIES TESTIFY THAT THEY DID NOT WANT THIS CODIFIED BECAUSE THEY FELT THAT THE BOARD OF REGENTS HAD LISTENED, THEIR UNIVERSITIES HAD LISTENED, AND THIS HAD BEEN REMEDIED. AND, SO, I THINK WE ARE STEPPING IN TO A PLACE THAT WE PHILOSOPHICALLY DON’T WANT TO GO TO. YOU KNOW, I’M REMINDED OF WHEN REAGAN SAID, I’M FROM THE GOVERNMENT, AND I’M HERE TO HELP. AND I THINK THAT’S WHERE WE’RE AT. WE ARE OVERSTEPPING ON THIS ISSUE AND WE’RE MICROMANAGING THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN HANDLED AT OUR LOCAL UNIVERSITIES AND STUDENTS ARE ASKING US NOT TO DO THIS. SO I’D ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON 1087. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE JENSEN.>>THANK YOU. I WAS RESISTING GETTING UP TO SPEAK ON THIS. THIS IS MY THIRD YEAR HERE. WE HAD A SIMILAR BILL EACH YEAR. BOARD OF REGENTS WAS INVITED TO THE TABLE. THE FIRST YEAR I HEARD A BILL LIKE THIS THEY WERE NOT VERY CORDIAL IN THE MEETING. THE FACT THAT IT’S BEEN HERE THREE YEARS IN A ROW, I BELIEVE THERE REALLY ARE ISSUES HAPPENING AND WE’RE JUST CHOOSING TO IGNORE THEM AND PUSHING IT OFF ON LETTING THE BOARD OF REGENTS HANDLE IT. WE BROUGHT THEM TO THE TABLE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WAS A FAIR NEGOTIATION GOING ON AND THEY PUSHED AWAY. I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO VOTE GREEN ON THIS, JUST BECAUSE THIS ISSUE KEEPS COMING UP, AND I REALLY TRULY BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE THINGS HAPPENING ON CAMPUS THAT ARE REALLY NOT BEING DEALT WITH TO EVERYBODY’S SATISFACTION. SO I’M GOING TO VOTE GREEN. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE HANSEN.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Mr. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE. I’VE HEARD IT MENTIONED A COUPLE TIMES THAT, REALLY, THIS BILL IS TRYING TO ADDRESS A PROBLEM THAT DOESN’T EXIST. AND I JUST WANT TO STAND UP AND SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND TELL YOU THAT THIS PROBLEM, AT LEAST MANY OF THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE ADDRESSED IN THIS BILL TODAY, THEY DO EXIST, THEY EXIST HERE IN SOUTH DAKOTA. AND I CAN SHARE MY OWN PERSONAL STORY WITH YOU AND IT WAS BACK WHEN I WAS JUST STARTING OUT IN LAW SCHOOL, A BUDDY OF MINE AND A FEW OTHERS, WE WANTED TO START UP A St. THOMAS MOORE SOCIETY, WHICH IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS IN A NUMBER OF LAW SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. IT’S AN ORGANIZATION OF CATHOLIC LAW STUDENTS. AND, SO, WE APPROACHED THE ADMINISTRATION AND WE HAD A CHAT WITH THE DEAN ABOUT IT. AND THE DEAN WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE FORMATION OF THE ORGANIZATION. BUT IT WAS ON ONE CONDITION. AND THAT WAS THAT WE COULD NOT RECEIVE FUNDING LIKE THE OTHER STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS — THE OTHER STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COULD. SO THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, FULL OF ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS, COULD HAVE THEIR ORGANIZATION AND THEY COULD HAVE THAT FUNDED BY SOME STUDENT DOLLARS. BUT NOT THIS ONE. AND NOT OTHERS LIKE OURSELVES. — LIKE OURS. AND THAT’S PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO ADDRESS. VIEWPOINT FAIRNESS AMONG ALL GROUPS, AMONG ALL STUDENTS. AND I THINK THAT’S IMPORTANT. AND I THINK THAT’S A GOOD GOAL TO SPREAD THROUGHOUT OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES, THAT WE ENCOURAGE ALL VIEWPOINTS. EVEN THE ONES WE DON’T AGREE WITH. WE ENCOURAGE THEM ALL. NOW, I ALSO THINK IT’S APPROPRIATE TO CODIFY THESE THINGS BECAUSE, WELL, I WOULD CHALLENGE ANY MEMBER OF THIS HOUSE TO APPROACH ONE OF OUR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND SAY, HEY, YOU’RE FREE TO EXERCISE YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, OF COURSE YOU ARE. BUT TO KNOW WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO, FIRST OF ALL, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO READ ABOUT, I DON’T KNOW, A DOZEN SUPREME COURT CASES AND THEN GO AHEAD AND TRY OPERATING. AND MAYBE YOU’LL BE JUST FINE OR MAYBE YOU’LL RUN INTO SOME LEGAL TROUBLE. AND IF THE SCHOOL TRIES TO SHUT YOU DOWN, THEN, SORRY, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO LITIGATE. AND YOU MIGHT WIN THAT COURT CASE OR YOU MIGHT NOT. WHY WOULD WE — WHY WOULD WE DO THAT TO OUR STUDENTS? WHY NOT SUPPORT CLARITY? WHY NOT SUPPORT COMPLIANCE ON THE FRONT END RATHER THAN CONFUSION AND LITIGATION ON THE BACK END? THAT’S WHAT THE BENEFIT IS OF CLARIFYING SOME OF THESE POSITIONS TODAY, OF CODIFYING SOME OF THESE POSITIONS TODAY. SUPPORTING CLARITY AND COMPLIANCE ON THE FRONT END AND AVOIDING CONFUSION AND LITIGATION ON THE BACK END. SO I ASK THAT THIS BODY SUPPORT THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1087 AS AMENDED?>>Mr. SPEAKER.>>REPRESENTATIVE CWACH.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. FELLOW REPRESENTATIVES, GOOD AFTERNOON. LIKE THE GOOD REPRESENTATIVE FROM LINCOLN COUNTY, I WASN’T PLANNING TO SPEAK, BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS. THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE LAST SPEECH. FIRST, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT WHEN IT COMES TO PARTISAN ORGANIZATIONS OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, NO ENTITIES GET — NO ENTITIES GET PUBLIC FUNDING IN THOSE SITUATIONS. YOU KNOW, St. THOMAS MOORE SOCIETY, COLLEGE DEMOCRATS, COLLEGE REPUBLICANS, THOSE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE NEVER QUALIFIED FOR STUDENT FUNDING, NOR SHOULD THEY BECAUSE THEY DO ADVOCATE FOR A VIEWPOINT ON CAMPUS. THEY’RE NOT PROHIBITED FROM BEING ON CAMPUS. THAT’S NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE. BUT THEY’RE NOT ENTITLED TO GET A PERSONAL OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS, WHICH IS WHERE THOSE FEES AND THOSE FUNDS COME FROM, ARE FROM THE UNIVERSITY’S DOLLARS. REALLY, IF THAT’S WHAT WE’RE DOING HERE, WE’RE REALLY OPENING UP A FLOODGATE OF HAVING TO FUND ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF VIEWPOINTS. WHILE WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE THOSE VIEWPOINTS ON OUR CAMPUS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE FUNDED IS SOMETHING I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO REJECT. THE OTHER THING I HAVE CONCERNS WITH THIS BILL IS, A LOT OF IT DOES ADDRESS — MIRRORS LANGUAGE THAT WE’RE TAUGHT IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT OUR LAW SCHOOLS, BUT THE THING ABOUT CODIFYING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CHANGES. YOU KNOW, CONSTITUTION DOESN’T CHANGE. THAT’S A PRETTY SIMPLE PARAGRAPH. BUT HOW SOCIETY INTERPRETS THAT LANGUAGE CHANGES OVER TIME. AND THAT’S BEEN DEFINED IN MANY LEGAL PRECEDENTS. YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A MENTION OF, YOU KNOW, STUDENTS HAVING TO READ THOSE PRECEDENTS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD, FIRST, BUT, SECOND, I DON’T THINK THIS BILL HELPS, YOU KNOW, IN THAT REGARD. YOU KNOW, TIME, MATTER AND PLACE RESTRICTIONS IS SOMETHING THAT’S DEFINED IN SOUTH DAKOTA — OR IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. THAT’S IN THE BILL BUT YOU’D HAVE TO GO AND LOOK UP THOSE CASES I THINK TO TRULY FULLY UNDERSTAND IT. THEN, LASTLY, I JUST WANT TO SPEAK AS A FORMER COYOTE. AND MY EXPERIENCE. AND I NEVER HAD A CONCERN, I WAS PART OF THE USD COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. SAME WITH THE COLLEGE REPUBLICANS, I THINK FROM THAT TIME WOULD SAY THE SAME THING, YOU KNOW, WE WERE ALLOWED TO BE ON CAMPUS AND DO WHATEVER WE WANT, YOU KNOW, WITHIN WE COULDN’T DISRUPT A CLASS, OF COURSE. AND, YOU KNOW, IN THE FALL, I BELIEVE IT WAS, THE SOUTH DAKOTA STUDENTS RIGHT TO LIFE GROUP, THEY ALWAYS HAD THEIR BIG DISPLAY OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF CAMPUS, THEY HAD THAT ALL WEEK, AND THAT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE. NO ONE EVER TRIED TO SILENCE THEM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE ARE SEARCHING FOR A SOLUTION THAT DOESN’T HAVE A PROBLEM. I HAD THE BENEFIT OF HEARING FROM CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERAL THOUGHT PERSPECTIVES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA. I HAD THE GREAT PLEASURE OF HAVING DINNER WITH JUDGE — SUPREME COURT JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS, AND I ACTUALLY GOT TO MEET HIM IN THE SUPREME COURT WHEN I WENT TO WASHINGTON, D.C., ON A U.S. — USD TRIP NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT. I THINK OUR UNIVERSITIES AS IT IS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB. AGAIN, IF WE’RE TALKING ABOUT GIVING MONEY TO VIEWPOINT ORGANIZATIONS, WE’RE RUNNING INTO OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. AND I STRONGLY DISCOURAGE YOU FROM VOTING FOR THIS BILL. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO H.B. 1087 AS AMENDED?>>Mr. SPEAKER.>>REPRESENTATIVE HUNHOFF.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE SPONSOR.>>PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION.>>THANK YOU. IN THE DISCUSSION THAT WE’VE BEEN HAVING HERE ON THE FLOOR, THERE IS SOME MENTION ABOUT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO PROVIDING FOR SPEAKERS TO COME ON CAMPUS. IS THAT PART OF THIS ISSUE THAT THOSE GROUPS THAT MIGHT HAVE TIES TO IDEALOGICAL, POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THESE DOLLARS AS PART OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH?>>REPRESENTATIVE PETERSON, DO YOU WISH TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?>>YES, THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. THIS BILL WOULD PROVIDE THAT, YES, REPRESENTATIVE, AND LET ME PROVIDE YOU WITH THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT. THE SUPREME COURT IN ROSENBERG VS. THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HAS RULED THAT GROUPS LIKE THE St. THOMAS MOORE SOCIETY SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO STUDENT FEE DOLLARS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TAX DOLLARS, THEY’RE STUDENT FEE DOLLARS. SO BECAUSE THEY’RE STUDENT FEES, THEY’RE NOT SUBJECT TO THE BLAINE AMENDMENT WHICH PREVENTS TAX DOLLARS FROM BEING GIVEN TO SECRETARIAN CAUSES.>>ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP, IF I COULD, Mr. SPEAKER.>>PLEASE GO AHEAD.>>IN YOUR PREPARATION OF THIS BILL WHEN YOU IDENTIFIED TALKING TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS AND WITH THE GOVERNOR, DID YOU ENGAGE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS ON THE CAMPUSES REGARDING THIS ISSUE, WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS BILL, AS WELL AS THE NEED FOR COMPENSATION OR BE INCLUDED IN THE FUNDING FOR SPEAKERS TO COME ON CAMPUS?>>REPRESENTATIVE PETERSON.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SPENT TIME OVER THE LAST NINE MONTHS TALKING TO ANY NUMBER OF INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS. THE BOARD OF REGENTS, A NUMBER OF STUDENTS HAVE CONTACTED US. THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THEALLY STUDENT ASSOCIATION GOVERNMENT OR NOT. SO WE HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THEM. THEY’VE EMAILED US. AND WE’VE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS. SO I WOULD SAY THAT THIS HAS BEEN VERY WELL RESEARCHED. IT’S GOTTEN A NUMBER OF INPUTS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. AND EVEN STARTING LAST JUNE, WE HAD LEADERSHIP IN THIS BODY THAT WAS ENGAGED WITH THE BOARD OF REGENTS IN GAINING INFORMATION. AND THAT’S ALL AVAILABLE ON THE BOARD OF REGENTS WEBSITE, IF YOU’D LIKE TO SEE THAT.>>THANK YOU.>>REPRESENTATIVE HUNHOFF, ANY FURTHER REMARKS?>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, OR I SHOULD SAY THE MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE THAT HAVE PROVIDED INPUT ON TO THIS SUBJECT, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THERE’S BEEN PROS AND CONS HERE. BUT, ONE, I GUESS I’M RATHER SURPRISED BECAUSE IF I BELIEVE THE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION DID PRESENT AT THE HEARING AND THEY WERE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, SO, IF WE’RE INCLUDING, THEN I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD WANT THAT GROUP TO BE IN THERE. I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING THAT THESE GROUPS COULD NOT PROVIDE SPEAKERS ON THEIR OWN OR HAVE SOMEONE ELSE FUND THEM TO COME ONTO CAMPUS SO THEY’D HAVE THIS ABILITY. IT SEEMS TO BE GOING DOWN TO THE POINT THAT, WELL, THEY SHOULD HAVE FUNDING BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE. HAD THE OPPORTUNITY DURING THE CAMPAIGN TO ATTEND A STUDENT GOVERNMENT MEETING AT USD AND I WAS JUST AMAZED AT THE NUMBER OF GROUPS THAT CAME IN, DIFFERENT GROUPS THAT WERE OUT THERE, ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE THERE, AND THEY WERE PRESENTING, AND I DON’T KNOW IF THEY WERE REQUESTING MONEY OR NOT, BUT I THINK MY POINT IS THIS, AGAIN, OUR OVERREACH F WE’VE GOT A CONCERN, IT’S THE LEGISLATURE, I THINK THE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION SHOULD HAVE THE INTEREST, SHOULD BE DRIVING THIS AND COMING TO US RATHER THAN WE OVERREACHING AND SAY, WE HAVE THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM. I WOULD ASK YOU TO VOTE RED ON THIS. THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE FINCK.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT WAS TOUCHED ON ABOUT THE STUDENT GOVERNMENT. AND SOME OF YOU KNOW THAT MY PASSION LIES WITH STUDENT GOVERNMENT. I WAS STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT AT SDSU FOR TWO YEARS. WHEN THE STUDENTS WERE HERE LAST WEEK FOR STUDENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION DAY, I GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO OUT TO THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER AND ENGAGE WITH THOSE STUDENTS ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES, THIS BEING ONE OF THEM. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT GREAT LENGTHMENT. I HAVE ON MY DESK COPIES OF VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS THAT THE STUDENT GROUPS PUT TOGETHER IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. NOW, THE REASON I HAVE NOT DISTRIBUTED THOSE, IS BECAUSE THE BILL HAS CHANGED SO EXTENSIVELY, THEY’RE REALLY NOT VALID ANYMORE. HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THIS. AND THIS IS A MESSAGE PASSED ALONG FROM THOSE STUDENT GROUPS THAT I WORK WITH WHEN THEY WERE HERE LAST WEEK. THEY FELT THROUGH THE BOARD OF REGENTS PROCESS THAT THEY WERE HIGHLY ENGAGED WITH WHAT WAS GOING ON. THEIR VOICE WAS ABLE TO COME TO THE TABLE AND BE HEARD AND I THINK THAT THAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT IN THIS. I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT EXTENDS TOWARDS THE AMENDED VERSION OF THIS BILL, BUT IN TERMS OF HOW THIS WAS DONE AT FIRST, THEY WERE HIGHLY INVOLVED WITH THE REGENTS IN THE CRAFTING OF THOSE POLICIES. SO I JUST WANTED TO STAND UP AND MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR THOSE HERE BECAUSE I DID HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THOSE STUDENTS. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1087 AS AMENDED? ANY FURTHER REMARKS? ANY FURTHER REMARKS BEFORE REPRESENTATIVE RING SPEAKS FOR AOND TIME? REPRESENTATIVE RING.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I’VE ALREADY TAKEN UP ENOUGH TIME, I RECOGNIZE THAT. I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COMMENT THAT A COUPLE PEOPLE MADE HERE THAT THE REGENTS DIDN’T BRING ANYTHING TO THE TABLE IN THE MOST RECENT NEGOTIATIONS. THERE WAS ALSO REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN OVER THE LAST YEAR, PROBABLY LONGER, CONSIDERABLE — THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE GIVE AND TAKE, THE REGENTS AND THE VARIOUS UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE DRAFTED NEW POLICIES, YOU CAN FIND A LOT OF THAT ON THE REGENTS WEBSITE, THEY HAVE ALREADY COME TO THE TABLE. THEY’VE ALREADY MADE A LOT OF THEIR COMPROMISES. THEY’VE GONE AS FAR AS THEY COULD GO THAT THEY DIDN’T BRING ANYTHING TO THE TABLE NOW RECENTLY IS BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY BROUGHT EVERYTHING TO THE TABLE AND GIVEN EVERYTHING THAT THEY FELT WAS NECESSARY, GIVEN THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO PROTECT ACADEMIC FREEDOM. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE PETERSON, YOU WANT TO CLOSE THIS OUT?>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS ONE COMMENT RELATED TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE AS IT RELATES TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS, AND THIS IS FROM CASE LAW. AND I’LL JUST READ IT VERBATIM SO THAT I DO IT CORRECTLY. THE SOUTH DAKOTA CONSTITUTION WHICH STRUCTURES A BOARD OF REGENTS WITH CONTROL OVER STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AUTHORIZES THE LEGISLATURE TO RESTRICT THAT CONTROL. IT DOES NOT GRANT THE BOARD OF REGENTS POLITICAL AUTONOMY. THE BOARD OF REGENTS IS NOT A FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATIVE POLICIES. LEGISLATIVE POWERS REMAIN. BOARD OF REGENTS’ CONTROL OVER STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IS SUBJECT TO SUCH RULES AND RESTRICTIONS AS THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PROVIDE. DESPITE CONTENTION THAT THE RULES AND RESTRICTIONS ONLY APPLF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THEIR CONFIRMATION OF THE SENATE. WITH THAT, Mr. SPEAKER, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SHARE A COUPLE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES BECAUSE THERE WERE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES SHARED IN COMMITTEE, THESE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. THIS IS A LETTER FROM A STUDENT FROM SDSU. THE STUDENT SAYS, AT SDSU, THERE ARE TONS OF ISSUES WITH FREE SPEECH. WE HAVE THE, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, FREE SPEECH TRIANGLE. IF YOU’RE NOT A STUDENT ORGANIZATION, EVEN IF YOU’RE A STUDENT, THERE’S ONLY ONE PLACE OUTSIDE THE UNION THAT YOU CAN PETITION OR PROTEST OR DO ANYTHING WITH FREE SPEECH TO THE PUBLIC. THERE HAS BEEN AN INSTANCE WITH ANOTHER STUDENT THAT PUTTING AN AMERICAN FLAG IN A DORM WINDOW WAS CONSIDERED POSSIBLY TRIGGERING AND CAMPUS STAFF TOLD HIM TO TAKE IT DOWN. THE ENTIRE FLOOR PROTESTED IT BY PUTTING FLAGS IN ALL OF THEIR WINDOWS. THE STUDENT GOES ON TO SAY, I WAS WAVING A CAMPAIGN SIGN ON A STREET CORNER OUTSIDE THE STADIUM FOR A HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL GAME ON CAMPUS WITH A CAMPAIGN T-SHIRT ON ANDY TOLD ME I COULDN’T WEAR THE SIGN AND TOLD ME I COULDN’T WEAR THE SHIRT. ALSO, WITH THE INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY PART, REPUBLICANS ON CAMPUS ARE FOR THE BILL, YET, THE STUDENT ASSOCIATION UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO LOBBY AGAINST THE BILL. THE EMAILS THEY SENT OUT EVERY WEEK WITH WHAT’S HAPPENING ON CAMPUS AND THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING SEEMED ALSO TO BE MISSING THE LINK FOR THE AGENDA. WE THOUGHT IT WAS PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES THEY DIDN’T WANT PROTESTED. THEY ALSO PUT IT ON THE NIGHT THAT JAKE OBUOYANCE WAS HERE, CONSERVATIVES WITH THE TURNING POINT INSTEAD. IT MAKES IT SEEM LIKE THEY WERE TRYING TO PASS IT UNDER THE RADAR OF CONSERVATIVES. POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS ALSO DON’T GET MONEY FROM THE GENERAL ACTIVITY FEE. WE PAY INTO IT BUT ONLY SOME OF US GET IT OUT. I ALSO HAVE A LETTER HERE FROM WA DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR EMERITUS AT USD, HE’S A LONGTIME CHAIR OF THE POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT AND ONE OF THE MOST WELL-RESPECTED PROFESSORS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE IN OUR STATE. THIS IS A FAIRLY LONG LETTER SO I WILL ACTUALLY PARAPHRASE FOR YOU HERE. I RETIRED IN AUGUST OF 2017 FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA AFTER SERVING 19 YEARS AS CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, AS WELL AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP, THE REDUCE I’M SETTING FORTH TODAY ARE MINE. I DO NOT REPRESENT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA OR THE BOARD OF REGENTS. THE PRIMARY EMPHASIS OF THIS ACT IS TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE FREE EXPRESSION OF DIVERSE IDEAS ON CAMPUS, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT MIGHT BE DISAGREEABLE FOR SOME TO HEAR. AT ITS ESSENCE, THE ACT PROMOTES THE CHERISHED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO ROBUST FREE SPEECH THAT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THE ABILITY OF STUDENTS TO THINK INDEPENDENTLY AND CRITICALLY FOR THEMSELVES AS THEY PREPARE FOR THE DAUNTING DEMANDS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT. THIS LETTER GOES ON FOR TWO MORE PAGES. BUT I WILL JUST SUMMARIZE BY SAYING, BILL RICHARDSON SAYS, I RESPECTFULLY ASSERT THAT HOUSE BILL 1087 IN TANDEM WITH THE NEW BOARD OF REGENTS’ POLICY ON FREE SPEECH WILL SEND A SIMILAR MESSAGE, HE’S REFERENCING THE MESSAGE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ON FREE SPEECH, TO ALL STUDENTS, FACULTY, STAFF AND CITIZENS OF SOUTH DAKOTA CONCERNING THE WAY THE IDEAS ARE EXPECTED TO BE TESTED ON ALL OF OUR CAMPUSES. I WOULD ASK YOUR GREEN VOTE. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS, IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1087 AS AMENDED, QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE IS FINAL PASSAGE, THOSE IN FAVOR WILL VOTE YAY, THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE AND THE MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER.>>REPRESENTATIVE CHASE.>>PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, PLEASE.>>GRANTED.>>Mr. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE BODY, I’D LIKE TO YOU LOOK UP IN THE BALCONY RIGHT HERE TO A GENTLEMAN THAT SERVED IN THIS CHAMBER FROM 2001, 2002, AND THEN MOVED OVER TO THE OTHER CHAMBER FROM 2003 TO 2010 FROM MY DISTRICT, WELCOME BACK, REPRESENTATIVE SENATOR TOM HANSON AND HIS WIFE, MARGE.>>WELCOME. [ Applause ]>>Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, THE YAYS, 44, NAYS, 24, EXCUSED, 2.>>HOUSE BILL 1087 AS AMENDED HAVING RECEIVED MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT IS HEREBY DECLARED PASSED. ANY QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO THE TITLE? HEARING NONE, THE TITLE IS DEEMED CORRECT.>>HOUSE BILL 1217, AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE ENDANGERMENT OF ANY CHILD BY MEANS OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY THEREFOR.>>HOUSE BILL 1217, HAVING HAD ITS SECOND READING, IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION, FINAL PASSAGE. ARE THERE ANY REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE GOODWIN.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE BODY. I BRING TO YOU HOUSE BILL 1217. PROHIBITS ENDANGERMENT OF ANY CHILD BY MEANS OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE AND PROVIDE PENALTIES THEREFOR. THIS BILL COMES FROM US FROM THE MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVERS. SOUTH DAKOTA’S ONE OF THREE STATES THAT HAS NOTHING ON THE STATUTE REGARDING THIS. IN THE PAST, THEY’VE USED CHILD ENDANGERMENT, BUT IT DIDN’T SPECIFICALLY TALK ABOUT DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. SO SOMETIMES IT WAS USED AND SOMETIMES IT WASN’T. THIS BILL SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE, IF YOU’RE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE AND YOU HAVE A JUVENILE IN YOUR CAR, WHICH IS JUVENILE IS DESCRIBED AS ANYONE 16 YEARS AND UNDER, IN ADDITION FOR GETTING A DUI, YOU WOULD ALSO GET A CLASS I MISDEMEANOR FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE WITH CHILDREN IN YOUR CAR. THIS PASSED JUDICIARY, 11-0. I URGE YOUR GREEN VOTE ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS REGARDING HOUSE BILL 1217? REPRESENTATIVE STEELE.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. QUESTION FOR THE SPONSOR.>>PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION.>>IF THERE IS A WOMAN IN THE CAR THAT’S EIGHT TO NINE MONTHS PREGNANT, IS THE DRIVER WHO’S DRUNK GOING TO GET A CLASS II MISDEMEANOR BECAUSE THERE’S SOMEONE IN THE VEHICLE UNDER 16?>>DO YOU WISH TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?>>Mr. SPEAKER, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I’M GOING TO DEFER TO REPRESENTATIVE FROM PENNINGTON COUNTY.>>REPRESENTATIVE DIEDRICH.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. LOOKING AT THE QUESTION OF HOW CHILD IS DEFINED IN THE STATUTE, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANY DEFINITION THAT IS INCONSISTENT, AND THEY’RE ALL ABOUT THE SAME, THAT CHILD MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS NOT ATTAINED 18 YEARS OF AGE. IT DOESN’T GO INTO PREBIRTH. AND, SO, I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. I DON’T THINK THERE’S AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.>>REPRESENTATIVE STEELE.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I WOULD HOPE THEY WOULD JUDGE IT ACCORDINGLY. BUT I HAVE TO QUESTION WHY IS A 14 OR A 15-YEAR-OLD MORE IMPORTANT THAN — OR A 16 AND 17-YEAR-OLD NOT AS IMPORTANT? TO ME, THE BILL IS WRITTEN IN THE WRONG PLACE. TO ME, IT DOESN’T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE CHILDREN. WE’RE LEAVING SOME OF THEM OUT. IT’S A GOOD BILL. I JUST THINK IT IS POORLY WRITTEN. AND I WILL HAVE TO VOTE RED ON IT. THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1217? REPRESENTATIVE JOHNS.>>Mr. SPEAKER, THANK YOU. AND, MEMBERS, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE SPONSOR.>>PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION.>>THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE A CHILD ENDANGERMENT LAW. IS IT YOUR PROPOSITION THAT THIS WILL SUPPLANT THAT LAW AND THAT IF YOU — INSTEAD OF A — IF YOU HAVE AN INCIDENT THAT YOU HAVE A PROSECUTOR THEN CHARGING BOTH STATUTES OR JUST THIS ONE?>>REPRESENTATIVE GOODWIN.>>THE INTENT OF THIS BILL, REPRESENTATIVE, WAS TO USE THIS BILL BECAUSE IT IS DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE.>>DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?>>WELL, IF I MAY.>>GO AHEAD.>>SO, CURRENTLY I UNDERSTAND THAT A NUMBER OF PROSECUTORS ARE CURRENTLY CHARGING THAT, THIS TYPE OF OFFENSE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES AS CHILD ENDANGERMENT. SO IS THIS GOING TO SUPPLANT THAT STATUTE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES?>>REPRESENTATIVE GOODWIN, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?>>I THINK I DO, Mr. SPR.>>OKAY.>>THE REASON THAT THIS BILL IS BROUGHT FORTH IS THERE WAS NOTHING SPECIFICALLY THAT TALKED ABOUT DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. SOMETIMES LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD USE CHILD ENDANGERMENT, SOMETIMES THEY WOULDN’T. IT WAS UP TO EACH CASE, ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. SO THIS WAY HERE, IF THEY’RE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, IT SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT THAT AND THAT’S WHAT THE CHARGE WOULD BE.>>THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER REMARKS? ANY FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1217? ANY FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE GOODWIN, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE BILL AT ALL OR ARE YOU SATISFIED?>>I’M SATISFIED, Mr. SPEAKER.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS, QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE, FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 1217, THOSE IN FAVOR WILL VOTE YAY, THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE AND THE MEMBERS WILL PROVIDE TO — WILL PROCEED TO VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, YAYS, 59. NAYS, 8. EXCUSED, 3.>>HOUSE BILL 1217, HAVING RECEIVED THE MAJORITY VOTE OF MEMBERS ELECT, IS HEREBY DECLARED PASSED. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TITLE? HEARING NONE, THE TITLE’S DEEMED CORRECT.>>HOUSE BILL 1139, AN ACT TO REPEAL PROVISIONS REGARDING MAXIMUM TAXES LEVIED BY A SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY.>>HOUSE BILL 1139, HAVING HAD ITS SECOND READING, IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION, FINAL PASSAGE. ARE THERE ANY REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE GOSCH.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I BRING YOU HOUSE BILL 1139 FROM EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. WE HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE THAT WHEN PROPOSING THIS BILL AND WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE HAVE GAINED THE SUPPORT FROM WHAT WE — WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD IS EVERY SCHOOL IN THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. SO, BACK THREE YEARS AGO, LET’S REWIND A LITTLE BIT AND LET’S TALK ABOUT THE FUNDING FORMULA AND LET’S TALK ABOUT CAPITAL OUTLAY. CAPITAL OUTLAY WAS A FUND INTENDED TO DEAL WITH FIXED COSTS, SUCH AS FACILITIES, MAINTENANCE REPAIRS, SO ON, SO FORTH ITS TAXED ON PROPERTY TAXES AND IT’S ALL LOCAL DOLLARS. SO CAPITAL OUTLAY IS ALL LOCAL DOLLARS. THERE IS A CAMP ON — CAP ON CAPITAL OUTLAY OF THREE MILLS. WHAT WE MEAN BY THREE MILLS, $3 FOR EVERY $1,000 WORTH OF ADVOCATION. — EVALUATION? OKAY. SO IF YOU TAKE ALL OF THE PROPERTY IN YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT, YOUR TOTAL EVALUATIONS, DIVIDED BY 1,000 TIMES THREE, THAT’S THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT CAN TAX FOR FIXED COSTS SUCH AS CAPITAL OUTLAY. LET’S FAST FORWARD TO THREE YEARS AGO. THREE YEARS AGO, THEY PUT A $2,800 PER STUDENT CAP ON THE CAPITAL OUTLAY. LET’S THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A LITTLE BIT. I’VE USED MY ANALOGY WITH SOME OF YOU, AND I’D LIKE TO USE MY ANALOGY HERE. AGAIN, WE’RE TALKING ABOUT FIXED COSTS. WHEN I HAVE 200 KIDS IN THAT BUILDING OR I HAVE 100 KIDS IN THE BUILDING, I STILL HAVE TO HEAT IT, I STILL HAVE TO TURN THE ELECTRICITY ON, AND SO ON, SO FORDS, I STILL GOT TO DO MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS. THAT BOILER ISN’T GOINGO LAST ANOTHER YEAR LONGER JUST BECAUSE I HAVE 200 KIDS AS OPPOSED TO 100 KIDS. SO WHAT WE’RE DOING IS WE’RE SPREADING A FIXED COST OR A FIXED AMOUNT ACROSS AN ARBITRARY NUMBER OF CHILDREN. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. I USE THIS ANALOGY. I HAVE 300 — SAY I HAVE 300 HEAD OF CATTLE THAT I WANT TO FEED. NOW LET’S NOT GET INTO THE WEEDS, LET’S JUST TALK ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT. I NEED TO OWN A TRACTOR, I NEED TO OWN A FEED WAGON. THAT’S GOING TO COST ME ROUGHLY $300,000. I CAN SPREAD THAT COST OVER 30 YEARS ACROSS 300 HEAD. RIGHT? MIGHT MAKE IT PROFITABLE. TODAY’S MARKET, PROBABLY NOT. BUT THAT’S A DIFFERENT SUBJECT. SO, I COULD SPREAD THAT COST. NOW WHAT IF I CUT THAT DOWN TO 50? DOES MY TRACTOR GET ANY CHEAPER, DOES MY FEED WAGON GET ANY CHEAPER? NO, IT DOESN’T. THERE’S 146 SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, NOT TWO OF THEM ARE ANYTHING ALIKE AT ALL. SO WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS IT LEAVES IT WHERE IT’S AT AT THE THREE MILLS AND IT WILL TAKE IT HOME TO LOCAL CONTROL WHERE YOUR LOCALLY ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE WHAT’S RIGHT FOR YOUR LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. AND IT TAKES IT AWAY FROM THE HANDS OF BIG GOVERNMENT HERE IN PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA. SO, I WOULD URGE YOU, I’M GOING TO STAND BY FOR QUESTIONS, BECAUSE I’M SURE THERE’S GOING TO BE ONE OR TWO, BUT I WOULD URGE A GREEN VOTE ON THIS FOR ME, AND LET’S DO WHAT’S RIGHT FOR OUR LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1139? REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. WELL, I APPRECIATE THE FORMER SPEAKER’S COMMENTS, BUT I WOULD ALSO ASK YOU TO DO WHAT’S RIGHT FOR THE TAXPAYERS IN THIS SITUATION. SEVERAL THINGS THAT I SEE THAT ARE WRONG WITH THIS BILL. BUT THE MAJOR THING THAT JUMPS OUT AT ME IS ON PAGE 2, STARTING ON PAGES, — PAGE LINE 20, IT TOTALLY ELIMINATES THE LIMIT ON THE REVENUE GROWTH FROM YEAR TO YEAR. SO RIGHT NOW WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO, IT LIMITS THE GROWTH IN THE REVENUE TO 3% OR CPI. THE SAME COMMON-SENSE LIMIT THAT WE PUT ON COUNTIES. THIS WOULD TOTALLY ELIMINATE THAT AND, SO, LITERALLY YOU COULD BE IN A SITUATION, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR VALUATION DID FROM YEAR TO YEAR, YOUR TAXES COULD LITERALLY DOUBLE. THERE IS NO LIMIT. SO IT’S $3 PER THOUSAND DOLLARS EVALUATION. IF YOUR ASSESSED VALUE DOUBLED, YOU’RE GOING TO STILL PAY $3 PER $1,000 EVALUATION ON THE DOUBLED ASSESSED VALUE. SO I’M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE RESIST THIS. I KNOW OTHER SPEAKERS WILL SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT WHEN THE BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE PASSED THIS, IT PROVIDED ROUGHLY $36 MILLION IN PROPERTY TAX RELIEF TO OUR CITIZENS ACROSS THE STATE. IF WE PASS THIS, THIS WILL ROLL BACK $30 MILLION OF THAT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF. SO I URGE YOU TO RESIST THIS AND VOTE NO. BESIDES THAT, IT HASN’T EVEN KICKED IN YET, SO THE SCHOOLS ARE ALREADY SCREAMING, BUT THIS HASN’T EVEN KICKED IN. IT STARTS WITH TAXES PAYABLE IN 2021. SO, I WOULD SAY, IF IT WAS 2025, AND WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS FOR FOUR YEARS OR FIVE YEARS, THEN IT WOULD BE TIME TO ADDRESS IT IF THERE WAS STILL AN ISSUE. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1139? REPRESENTATIVE SCHOENFISH.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE A COUPLE THINGS, GENERAL AND CAPITAL OUTLAY FUNDS ARE TWO SEPARATE FUNDS. YOU CAN’T TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND TO CAPITAL OUTLAY. THE LAW SAYS THE GENERAL FUND IS TO MEET ALL OPERATING COSTS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT EXCLUDING CAPITAL OUTLAY. AND FROM THE OPPOSITION IN COMMITTEE I KNOW HAS SAID SCHOOLS CAN JUST OPT OUT. THIS IGNORES THE NEEDS OF CAPITAL OUTLAY AND IS NOT APPROPRIATE. AFTER SOME SCHOOLS WERE FORCED TO SPEND DOWN THEIR GENERAL FUND BECAUSE OF CHANGES MADE IN 2016, PUTTING A CAP ON THEIR GENERAL FUND BALANCE. THERE ARE SCHOOLS WHO HAD HEALTHY GENERAL FUND BALANCES BUT WERE NOT TAKING EVEN CLOSE TO THE MAXIMUM CAPITAL OUTLAY LEVIES BUT THEY COMPLIED WITH THE FUND BALANCE LAW AND WERE FORCED TO SPEND MONEY THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED FROM THEIR OWN TAXPAYERS. AND NOW THEY’RE GOING TO BE EVEN MORE LIMITED IF WE DON’T PASS THIS BILL. SO PLEASE PASS THIS BILL. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE FRYE-MUELLER.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I’M JUST GOING TO READ ONE LITTLE PARAGRAPH OF A EMAIL I GOT FROM A CONSTITUENT. IT SAYS HERE, IT’S TIME TO PAY ATTENTION — IT’S TIME THE STATE PAID ATTENTION TO THE BANKRUPTCY THAT IS HAVE BEEN ESCALATING, BUT THERE’S BEEN A LACK OF CONSOLIDATIONS OR ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS ON SCHOOLS. PIERRE HAS DEMONSTRATED A REMARKABLE STATE OF TONE DEAFNESS WHEN IT COMES TO FIXING PROBLEMS FOR ITS CITIZENS. THERE’S A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE HURTING BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY TAXES, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE A NO VOTE ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1139? REPRESENTATIVE LATTERELL.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER, MEMBERS. HOUSE. THIS IS A BILL THAT WE HEARD IN THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE AND IT’S A BIT OF A DIFFICULT VOTE FOR MYSELF. IT’S A DIFFICULT SITUATION. AND I DO WISH WE HAD A LITTLE BIT BROADER COVERAGE HERE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. AND I DON’T THINK I’LL BE ABLE TO CORRECTLY RECOUNT THE ENTIRE SITUATION, BUT I DO KNOW THAT DURING THE BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE, THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, THE LEGISLATURE, THEY WERE PASSING WHAT WAS A PACKAGE, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE STATE’S SHARE OF THE FUNDING THAT WE PROVIDE TO EDUCATION AND PART OF THE DEAL TO GET THAT PASSED, WHICH PASSED VERY NARROWLY, WAS TO REDUCE THE BURDEN THAT THE LOCALS WOULD HAVE TO BEAR. AND, SO, THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN FUNDING TO ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. AS A RESULT OF THAT PACKAGE DEAL, WHICH AS WE HEARD IN THE TESTIMONY, THAT ALSO PROVIDED SOME PROPERTY TAX RELIEF. SO THEN THERE WAS ALSO THE ISSUE OF THE CAPITAL OUTLAY FLEXIBILITY. THERE WAS A BILL THAT WAS TEMPORARY, WHICH ALLOWED FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND, WHICH PREVIOUSLY WAS USED FOR JUST BUILDING BUILDINGS, THE FLEXIBILITY WAS ALLOWED SO THAT IT COULD BE USED FOR FIXED COSTS, LIKE PROPERTY INSURANCE, UTILITIES, ET CETERA. AND I WAS JUST READING A NEWS ARTICLE FROM FORMER REPRESENTATIVE TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS FLEXIBILITY THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS A TEMPORARY MEASURE SO THAT THE SCHOOLS WOULD BE ABLE TO KIND OF EASE THEIR WAY INTO THE NEW FORMULA AND GET AWAY FROM USING THE CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES. AND THEN I BELIEVE WE MADE THAT FLEXIBILITY PERMANENT OR IF WE DIDN’T MAKE IT PERMANENT, SOMEONE WILL HAVE TO CORRECT ME ON THAT, BUT IN THE BILL WE HAVE BEFORE THAT WE HEARD IN COMMITTEE, IT WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT JUST AS THE TOP HALF OF THE BILL WHICH TAKES AWAY THE $2,800 CAP ON CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND EXPENDITURES. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SCHOOLS, INCLUDING SCHOOLS IN MY DISTRICT, WHICH HAVE EXCEPTIONALLY LOW NUMBER OF CAPITAL OUTLAY DOLLARS PER STUDENT THAT THEY’RE COLLECTING. WE’RE AT ABOUT $775. SO ONE OF THE LOWEST IN THE STATE. AS IT TURNS OUT, MY SCHOOL DISTRICT, TEA SCHOOL DISTRICT, IS ALSO ONE OF THE FASTEST-GROWING DISTRICTS IN THE STATE. SO WHEN WE HAVE SUCH A LOW CAPITAL OUTLAY DOLLARS PER STUDENT, BUT ONE OF THE HIGHEST NEEDS, THERE’S REALLY AN ISSUE FOR MY SCHOOL. AND IN THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE BILL, IT REALLY DIDN’T ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM THAT THE TEA SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS FACING. WHICH WAS THAT THEY HAD BEEN LEVYING AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE AMOUNT BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT PROPERTY TAXES IN MY COUNTY WERE ALREADY DIFFICULT TO BEAR FOR SOME OF THE PROPERTY TAX OWNERS, SO THEY WERE TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL. AND, THEREFORE, THEY SET THE CAPITAL OUTLAY AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE LEVEL THAT THEY COULD SET. WELL, AS IT TURNS OUT WITH THE BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE, THE COMPROMISE THAT WAS REACHED ALSO, ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT THE SCHOOLS WERE RECEIVING — [ Indiscernible ]>>THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT THE SCHOOLS RECEIVE FROM THE STATE, THEY WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO FREEZE THEIR CAPITAL OUTLAY LEVIES. AND THE TEA SCHOOL DISTRICT, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS ONE OF THOSE THAT HAD BEEN TAXED — LEVYING AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. THEY WERE NOT AT THE $3 PER THOUSAND. SO THEY KIND OF GOT CAUGHT IN THE LOOP HERE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE LIST OF THE SCHOOLS AND HOW MUCH THEY’RE RAISING FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY, THEY’LL’S — YOU’LL SEE THAT IT GOES EVEN ABOVE $10,000 PER STUDENT IN SOME CASES. WHEREAS, THE CAP THAT IS CONSIDERED IN THE FIRST HALF OF THIS BILL, THE $2,800 CAP, THAT WOULDN’T APPLY TO MY SCHOOL DISTRICT. ONLY THE FREEZE PORTION, WHICH WAS AMENDED ON IN COMMITTEE, WOULD APPLY TO MY SCHOOL DISTRICT. SO THERE IS A BIT OF AN INTERESTING INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE TWO HERE. IF YOU REMOVE THE $2,800 CAP AND YOU REMOVE THE FREEZE, WHICH ONLY ALLOWED THE CAPITAL OUTLAY TAXES TO GROW BY INFLATION, OR 3%, THEN YOU COULD GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE GIVING A LOT OF AUTHORITY TO IMMEDIATELY INCREASE TAXES SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE DISTRICT. MY PREFERENCE IS THAT WE DO ALLOW A SCHOOL DISTRICT LIKE TEA, THAT HAS A DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR ACTUAL CAPITAL OUTLAY DOLLARS TO BUILD BUILDINGS FOR STUDENTS THAT ARE COMING IN THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO RAISE THEIR CAPITAL OUTLAY LEVY YOU WERE TO THE $3 PER THOUSAND SO THAT THEY COULD TAKE CARE OF THE STUDENTS WITH BUILDING THE BUILDINGS THAT THEY NEED. BUT THEY’RE NOT EVER GOING TO HIT THE $2,800 PER STUDENT CAP BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSTRAINED BY GEOGRAPHY. SO JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF EDUCATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT’S NOT AS THOROUGH OR DETAILED AS I’D LIKE IT TO BE, BUT THERE ARE PROBABLY OTHER MEMBERS HERE WHO COULD ENLIGHTEN ME IF I HAVE MADE ANY MISSTEPS IN MY STATEMENT, BUT IT IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION FOR ME BECAUSE THERE WAS A DEAL REACHED WITH THE PROPERTY TAX OWNERS AND GIVING THEM SOME RELIEF IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE FUNDING FROM THE STATE. AND BOTH SECTIONS OF THIS BILL TOGETHER, WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS, ACTUALLY, JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU, TO HELP MAKE YOUR DECISION. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE GOODWIN.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I URGE TO VOTE AGAINST THIS ALSO. THERE’S A COUPLE THINGS THAT SCARE ME ON THIS. IT REMOVES THE CPI INDEX FACTOR, WHICH MEANS YOU COULD HAVE UNLIMITED GROWTH IN THE CAPITAL OUTLAY REVENUES. THAT CAP WAS IN THERE FOR A REASON SO IT CAN ONLY GO BACK, I BELIEVE IT WAS 3% A YEAR FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. SO IT REMOVES THAT. IT REMOVES THE $2,800 STUDENT CAP ON CAPITAL OUTLAY, WHICH I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT. AND IT REMOVES TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS AS THE ONLY LIMITATION OF CAPITAL OUTLAY TAXES. THIS WOULD BE A $3 LEVY PER $1,000 VALUATION ON CLASS OF PROPERTY. SO I THINK THIS IS A DANGEROUS BILL. I URGE YOUR RED VOTE.>>THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER REMARKS? ANY FURTHER REMARKS REGARDING HOUSE BILL 1139? REPRESENTATIVE GOSCH.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME GOOD QUESTIONS. LET’S TRY TO DRIVE IT HOME A LITTLE BIT. WE TALK ABOUT TEXAS. WE GOT A TAX ISSUE. WE GOT CAPITAL OUTLAY TAX ISSUES. REALLY KIND OF A SCARY THING WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PROPERTY TAXES AND PROTECTIONS. WE TALK ABOUT TAXES. LET’S GO TO THE TAXING FORMULA. EVALUATIONS DIDN’T INCREASE BECAUSE SCHOOLS ALL OF A SUDDEN SAID, WE’RE GOING TO INCREASE EVALUATIONS, THIS IS AN AMAZING IDEA. THE EVALUATIONS INCREASED BECAUSE OF THE TAXING FORMULA, WE ARE NOW ON A PRODUCTION-BASED TAXING FORMULA. THAT’S WHY THE EVALUATIONS INCREASED. NOW TO TRY TO CATEGORIZE EVERY SCHOOL AS DOING THE SAME THING IS EXACTLY WHAT’S WRONG WITH US MAKING THE DECISION AS OPPOSED TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAKING THE DECISION. CASE IN POINT. I WAS A SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR SELBY AREA HIGH SCHOOL. WE SAW THE TAX INCREASES GOING UP AND VALUATIONS GOING UP. SO WE LOWERED OUR LEVIES. BUT ISN’T THAT WHAT WE’RE SUPPOSED TO DO? ISN’T THAT WHAT A RESPONSIBLY ELECTED OFFICIAL IS SUPPOSED TO DO, IS PAY ATTENTION TO THAT INFORMATION? WE LOWERED THEM TO A POINT WHERE WE ACTUALLY GOT PHONE CALLS, WONDERING, ARE WE TRYING TO SCUTTLE OUR OWN SCHOOL? AND WE SAID, NO, EVALUATIONS HAVE GONE UP, ALL WE NEED IS THIS MUCH MONEY, THEREFORE, WE LOWERED THEM. AGAIN, GREAT DECISIONS MADE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT. AND THAT HAPPENS IN ALL — AND THAT HAPPENS ALL OVER THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. I REPRESENT 18 DIFFERENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS, ALL OF THEM RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. 14 ACTUAL SCHOOLS, 13 OF WHICH ARE PUBLIC. SO, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR ME TO STAND UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT RURAL EDUCATION WHEN I’M LOOKING AT LIKELY TWO AREAS WHERE WE HAVE 14 LEGISLATORS REPRESENTING ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT. SO IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO TRY TO GET UP AND GIVE THAT RURAL OPPORTUNITY, BUT LET’S TALK ABOUT THE CPI INDEX. AND THAT 3%. THIS COULD POSSIBLY, AS MY EVALUATIONS DOUBLE, THEY’LL DOUBLE. WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU IS THAT EVALUATIONS ARE TO BE A 100% BY 2020. SO THEY’RE THE NO GOING UP ANYMORE. THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO BE WHERE THEY’RE AT. AND IF THEY AREN’T, IT’S FROZE. IT IS WHAT IT IS. SO LOCAL TAX ASSESSORS, THEY’VE BEEN — EVERYBODY SAYS, YOU’VE BEEN RAISING MY EVALUATIONS WHICH, THEREFORE, RAISES MY TAXES. AGAIN, GO TO YOUR LOCALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND TELL THEM THAT THAT’S WHAT’S HAPPENING AND GET THEM LOWER. SO NOW WE HEARD ABOUT THE OPTION OF OPT-OUTS. RIGHT, OPT-OUTS ARE THE ULTIMATE LOCAL CONTROL. OPT-OUTS, RIGHT NOW, 66 OF THE 146 SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA HAVE AN OPT-OUT AND THAT IS CONTINUING TO INCREASE. SO WHAT I’M HEARING ABOUT OPT-OUTS IS DO ANOTHER ONE. AND LET’S CONTINUE TO INCREASE IT. THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH OPT-OUTS IS AN OPT-OUT IS A TRUE FORM OF DEMOCRACY. WITH MORE THAN 50% OF THE VOTE, YOU CAN GET AN OPT-OUT PASSED. A SCHOOL BOARD IS A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. SO FOLLOW ME FOR A SECOND. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT A RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT WHERE THERE’S A TOWN OF 600 PEOPLE, OKAY, AND THEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT HOW MANY FARMERS AND RANCHERS THERE ARE OUT THERE, 50% OF THE VOTE LIVES IN THE TOWN. SO IF THE TOWN WANTS TO RAISE THE FARMERS’ PROPERTY TAXES, THEY CAN DO IT. BECAUSE THEY’VE GOT THE VOTES AND THE FARMERS DON’T. WHEREAS, A SCHOOL BOARD, IF YOU LOOK AT, ESPECIALLY IN THE RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THE MAJORITY OF THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE ELECTED ARE FARMERS AND RANCHERS FORHAT EXACT REASON. THEY HAVE SOME FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THEY WT A VOICE. AGAIN, REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, AS OPPOSED TO A T DEMOCRACY. OKAY? SO THOSE ARE THE TWO DIFFERENCES WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LOCALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND I DO APOLOGIZE, I USUALLY TRY TO KEEP IT TO THREE MINUTES, BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF GREAT POINTS MADE OUT THERE TONIGHT — OR MADE OUT THERE TODAY. YOU TALK ABOUT DO WHAT’S RIGHT FOR THE TAXPAYERS. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. I THINK THE LOCALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE THE ONES LIVING IN THE AREA, THEY’RE THE ONES DOING IT. WE ALWAYS ARGUE HERE THAT WE AS A LEGISLATURE ARE A PEOPLE’S LEGISLATURE AND WE ARE CITIZENS OF OUR STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.>>THANK YOU. CLEEREY YIELDS.>>THANK YOU. WE’RE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, THEREFORE, WE BEST REPRESENT OUR CONSTITUENTS OVER, SAY, AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH. AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT’S PROBABLY RIGHT. BUT I ALSO ARGUE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARDS DO A WAY BETTER JOB OF THAN US. WE HEARD TESTIMONY TODAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON’T COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE FUNDING FORMULA, BUT THIS IS WHAT I READ INTO IT. I’LL TELL YOU, THERE’S SEVEN LOCALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS IN SELBY, SOUTH DAKOTA, THAT UNDERSTAND THAT FUNDING FORMULA A LOT BETTER THAN I DO AND KNOW THE NEEDS OF THEIR SCHOOL A LOT BETTER THAN I DO, SO THEY SHOULD BE THE ONES THAT MAKE THE DECISION. AGAIN, BACK TO LOCAL CONTROL. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT NEED IT. WE TALK ABOUT RURAL SCHOOLS. MY KIDS SIT ON A SCHOOL BUS FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF ONE WAY EVERY DAY. THAT’S THREE HOURS ON A SCHOOL BUS. WE LIVE 20 MILES FROM A SCHOOL. IT IS A SCHOOL THAT IS CONSOLIDATED FOUR OR FIVE TIMES. DEPENDING, WE’VE TAKEN HALF OF ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT HAS CLOSED. OKAY. WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT IS RURAL EDUCATION LOOK LIKE? BECAUSE IN OUR CONSTITUTION IT SAYS THAT WE ARE TO PROVIDE A FREE EDUCATION. OUR CONSTITUTION IN THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA SAYS THAT. SO WE’RE GOING TO BE STUCK WITH THE BILL WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. THE ONLY OPTION IS, DO YOU GUYS WANT THIS TO BE A LOCAL ISSUE AND LOCALLY FUNDED, LOCAL TAXPAYER DOLLARS OR DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD BRING IT HOME TO THE STATE AND RAISE ANOTHER TAX SOMEHOW AND TELL THEM WE KNOW WHAT’S GOOD NOW. NOW, WE ALSO HEARD ABOUT — GOOD FOR YOU. WE HEARD ABOUT CONSOLIDATION, SOME OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS NEED TO CONSOLIDATE. IF TWO NEIGHBORING SCHOOLS WANT TO CONSOLIDATE, THE RICHER OF THE SCHOOL, IF YOU WILL, WE’LL KEEP YOUR FACILITY OPEN, WE’LL SPREAD THAT OVER OUR TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS, ON THE TAX LEVY, WE’LL MAKE IT AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYBODY AND WE CAN HELP YOU OUT. BUT LET’S TAKE IT TO A $2,800 CAP. I’M NOW THE RICHER SCHOOL, I DON’T CARE. I’M SORRY, BUT I CAN’T TAKE THAT BECAUSE I CAN ONLY RAISE $2,800 MYSELF, I’M BARELY PAYING THE BILLS, I CAN’T HELP YOU. SO THOSE SCHOOLS, YOU’RE GETTING RID OF THE IDEA FOR CONSOLIDATION BY LEAVING A $2,800 CAP BECAUSE THERE’S NO BENEFIT ANYMORE. I AGREE, CONSOLIDATION’S A GREAT THING. I’VE BEEN A PART OF IT. I WENT TO GLAHNHAM SCHOOL UNTIL FIFTH GRADE, THEY CLOSED, CONSOLIDATED WITH SELBY, WE MOVED TO SELBY, IT ENDED UP BEING A GREAT THING. I WOULDN’T HAVE HAD IT ANY OTHER WAY. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, WITH THE $2,800 CAP, YOU’RE GETTING RID OF CONSOLIDATION. WHY WOULD I? WHY WOULD I TRY TO BRING YOUR BURDEN OBJECT — ON TO ME WHEN I CAN’T HELP THAT AT ALL? BOTTOM LINE IS, IT COMES DOWN TO LOCAL CONTROL. DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD HERE DICTATE AS TO WHAT CAN BE DONE OR DO YOU THINK LOCALLY, AGAIN, ELECTED OFFICIALS, PEOPLE YOU VOTED FOR, SHOULD HAVE THAT DECISION? I’M GOING TO WRAP IT UP WITH TWO THINGS. WE’RE GOING TO START WITH THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM. OKAY. THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM, LOCAL CONTROL, WE SUPPORT RETURNING CONTROL TO THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM, TO PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITIES THAT FUND IT. AND OUR DEMOCRAT FRIENDS, YOU’RE NOT OUT OF THE WOODS EITHER BECAUSE YOUR PLATFORM SAYS, WE SUPPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN BOTH AGREE ON. LET’S SEND IT HOME. LET’S LET OUR LOCALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS DO IT. AND LET’S DO WHAT’S RIGHT FOR OUR EDUCATION IN SOUTH DAKOTA. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1139, QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE IS FINAL PASSAGE OF 1139. THOSE IN FAVOR WILL VOTE YAY. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE, AND THE MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE. REPRESENTATIVE BARTHEL.>>PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.>>GRANTED.>>I’D LIKE TO WELCOME MY GOOD FRIENDS OF MINE, ANN ROMAN AND DAN BEEKHAM FROM SIOUX FALLS, MORE IMPORTANTLY, DAN LIVES — WELL, THEY BOTH LIVE REAL CLOSE TO US AND DAN HELPS KEEP THE PEACE IN MY HOUSE BY SHOVELING THE SNOW WHILE I’M GONE. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT. I KIND OF WONDER WHAT HE’S DOING HERE SITTING HERE, IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE SNOWING BACK THERE. PLEASE WELCOME THEM.>>WELCOME. [ Applause ]>>PROBABLY SHOULDN’T BE TOO CRITICAL.>>REPRESENTATIVE MULALLY.>>Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE. REPRESENTATIVE LATERAL.>>Mr. SPEAKER, 33 NAYS, 35 NAYS, EXCUSED 2.>>GIVEN NOTICE OF INTENT TO RECONSIDER. REPRESENTATIVE LATTERELL HAS GIVEN NOTICE OF INTENT TO RECONSIDER.>>HOUSE BILL 1180, AN ACT TO REVISE CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COLLECTION AND STORAGE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT KIT EVIDENCE.>>HOUSE BILL 1180, HAVING HAD ITS SECOND READING IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION, FINAL PASSAGE. ARE THERE ANY REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE REED.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, I BRING TO YOU TODAY BILL H.B. — HOUSE BILL 1180. WHAT 1180 DOES ON A VERY HIGH LEVEL IS MOVES THE STORAGE OF ANONYMOUS, IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THEY’RE ANONYMOUS RAPE KITS FROM HOSPITALS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. THE CURRENT PRACTICE TODAY IS THAT WHEN THERE’S AN ANONYMOUS RAPE KIT, THE HOSPITAL WHERE THE RAPE KIT HAS BEEN OR THE SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAMINATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED WILL ACTUALLY HOLD ONTO THE KIT. NOW, IT’S IMPORTANT TO KNOW ABOUT THAT KIT IS THERE’S NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION INSIDE OR ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT KIT. SO WHAT THEY DO IS THEY NOTIFY OR THEY GIVE A FORM TO THE VICTIM OF THE ASSAULT THAT STATES, WE’RE STORING THIS FOR YOU FOR ONE YEAR. IF YOU COME BACK TO THE HOSPITAL, AND THAT PERSON IS ASSIGNED A CODE, THEY HAVE A SEPARATE SHEET THAT HAS THE NAME OF THE VICTIM AND THEN THE CODE SO THEY CAN MATCH IT UP, IF YOU BRING THAT CODE BACK, WE WILL TURN THAT KIT OVER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SO THEY CAN CONTINUE ON WITH THE — IF THE VICTIM CHOOSES, THEY CAN CONTINUE ON WITH THE INVESTIGATION. SO, WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS AS SOON AS THAT RAPE KIT IS COLLECTED, WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IS NOTIFIED. AND, AGAIN, THAT KIT HAS NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION EITHER IN IT OR ON THE OUTSIDE OF IT. INSTEAD, THERE’S A CODE. SO NOW WITH THIS BILL, THE VICTIM OF THE ASSAULT WILL BE GIVEN THE INFORMATION AND BE GIVEN THE CODE AND NOW THEY GO TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND SAY, I WANT TO CONTINUE ON WITH PROSECUTION. AND THEN THAT KIT WILL BE TESTED. THEY HAVE THE CODE, THEY BRING THAT CODE IN, AND THAT’S HOW THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WILL STORE THAT KIT IS BY A CODE. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? LAW ENFORCEMENT IS BETTER AT MANAGING CHAIN OF CUSTODY. AND THAT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO DO, OR VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE WHEN YOU’RE PURSUING PROSECUTION. YOU DON’T WANT ANY MISTAKES IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ALSO CONSIDERS THIS A BEST PRACTICE. PLUS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES KNOW HOW TO STORE EVIDENCE. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT THEY’RE ALREADY DOING. THIS EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE STORED A CERTAIN WAY. THEY UNDERSTAND HOW TO STORE IT. SO THIS BILL IS REALLY ABOUT SECURING AND STORING THE KITS PROPERLY. I WANT TO THANK THE POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, I WORKED WITH THEM ON THIS BILL, AND THERE WAS NO OPPOSING TESTIMONY. THE SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION AND HOSPITALS WERE PROPONENTS FOR THIS BILL, AND THEY — WENT THROUGH JUDICIARY WITH APPROVAL OF 12-0. I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON HOUSE BILL 1180. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1180? ANY FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE FRYE-MUELLER.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. QUESTION FOR THE SPONSOR, PLEASE.>>PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION.>>WAS THERE A PARTICULAR REASON IT WAS ONLY TO BE HELD FOR ONE YEAR OR HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN ONE YEAR?>>REPRESENTATIVE REED, DO YOU WISH TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?>>YES, I DO, Mr. SPEAKER. THAT’S THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF ONE YEAR. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE LOOKED AT IN THE FUTURE WHEN IT COMES TO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. BUT IT WAS JUST IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW TO MAKE SURE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE STORING THESE KITS SO THEY’RE STORED PROPERLY.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS?>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I APPRECIATE HIM BRINGING THIS BILL. BUT I WOULD — I WOULD HOPE THAT HE WOULD CONSIDER MAYBE MAKING IT A LONGER TIME THAT THEY HELD THIS INFORMATION, IF THEY COULD. IF WE COULD LOOK AT THAT IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. THERE’S ALWAYS OPPORTUNITIES IN THE SENATE IF IT GETS THAT FAR. ANY FURTHER REMARKS? HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1180, THE QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE, FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 1180, THOSE IN FAVOR WILL VOTE YEA, THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE AND THE MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE. PLEASE FINISH VOTING.>>Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, YEAS, 67, EXCUSED, 3.>>HOUSE BILL 1180 HAVING RECEIVED A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS ELECT IS HEREBY DECLARED PASSED. ANY REMARKS TO THE TITLE? HEARING NONE, THE TITLE IS DEEMED CORRECT.>>HOUSE BILL 1257, AN ACT TO AUTHORORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE MILITARY TO CONSTRUCT TWO STORAGE BUILDINGS TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION THEREFORE AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.>>HOUSE BILL 1257, HAVING RECEIVED ITS — HAVING HAD ITS SECOND READING IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION, FINAL PASSAGE. ARE THERE ANY REMARKS? AND ALSO, THIS INCLUDES AN APPROPRIATION, SO IT WILL BE A 2/3 VOTE OF THE MEMBERS ELECTMENT. REPRESENTATIVE BARTELS.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. HOUSE BILL 1257 WAS INTRODUCED BY THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS AT TH IT’S AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY TO CONSTRUCT TWO STORAGE BUILDINGS MAKING APPROPRIATION FOR IT AND ALSO DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. THIS BILL WOULD GRANT THE AUTHORITY TO SPEND $1,104,000 IN FEDERAL FUND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STEEL BUILDINGS TO BE USED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA NATIONAL GUARD. ONE WILL BE BUILT AT THE ARMORY GUARD FACILITY AT THE NORTH END OF JOE FOSS FIELD IN SIOUX FALLS AND THE OTHER ON THE WEST CAMP TRAINING AREA IN RAPID CITY. BOTH BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE STEEL BUILDINGS AND ARE ALMOST THE EXACT SAME SIZE. SECTION 1 AND 2 OF THE BILL REFERS TO THE WEST CAMPUS — WEST CAMP RAPID TRAINING AREA. THIS PROJECT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY $750,000. IT’S A 14,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING, WHICH WILL BE USED TO STORE LARGE TRAINING EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS THE VIRTUAL CONVOY OPERATIONS TRAINER AND THE HIGH-MOBILITY PURPOSE — HIGH-MOBILITY MULTIPURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLE EGRESS ASSISTANCE TRAINER AND THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT GUNNERY TRAINER. THESE ARE HIGHLY TECHNICAL PIECES OF EQUIPMENT THAT NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE EXTREME COLD AND HOT CONDITIONS AND THIS BUILDING WILL HAVE THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS TO DO THAT. ALSO HAVING THEM IN ONE LOCATION FOR THESE TRAININGS IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY CONTROLLED BUILDING WILL ENHANCE TRAINING AND ALLOW IT TO BE DONE YEAR-ROUND. SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE BILL REFER TO THE BUILDING TO BE AT THE ARMORY GUARD FACILITY AT JOE FOSS FIELD. THIS, AGAIN, IS ABOUT A 14,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING WITH A COST OF $354,000, AND WILL BE USED AS A GARAGE TO STORE AND PROTECT VEHICLES, GENERATORS AND SPECIALIZED COMMUNITY EQUIPMENT FROM TAMPERING AND EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS THAT WE EXPERIENCE HERE IN SOUTH DAKOTA. AGAIN, THE 1,104,000 NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOTH FACILITIES IS FEDERAL FUNDS. I’LL STAND BY FOR QUESTIONS AND I URGE YOU TO VOTE GREEN ON THIS. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1257? ANY FURTHER REMARKS?>>Mr. SPEAKER.>>REPRESENTATIVE MULALLY.>>QUESTION FOR THE SPONSOR, PLEASE.>>PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION.>>MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE COLD STORAGE BUILDING IS JUST THAT, COLD STORAGE. HEATING IT, PLUMBING IT, AND THAT IS NOT PART OF COLD STORAGE. AND THE OTHER BUILDING IS CALLED A MOTOR VEHICLE STORAGE UNIT, WHICH SHOULD BE HOUSED WARM AND THAT WHY IS ONE TWICE THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER?>>DO YOU WISH TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?>>YES, Mr. SPEAKER. WELL, THE ONE IS TWICE AS EXPENSIVE BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING TO KEEP THE TEMPERATURE THE SAME TO PROTECT THE COMPUTERIZED EQUIPMENT IN IT. AS WELL AS IT ALSO IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME SITE PREPARATION. THE BUILDING IN SIOUX FALLS IS BEING BUILT IN A GRAVEL LOT, SO THERE’S BASICALLY NO SITE PREPARATION THERE. THE BUILDING AT WEST CAMP RAPID WILL BE BUILT IN A GREEN AREA CURRENTLY SO THERE WILL BE SOME SITE PREPARATION THAT WE AREN’T EXPERIENCING IN SIOUX FALLS IS ALSO PUSHING THE PRICE UP.>>FURTHER REMARKS? GO AHEAD.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. OH, DARN, BATTERY JUST WENT DEAD ON ME. [ Laughter ] IF I’M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY, THE ONE THAT IS CONSIDERED COLD STORAGE IS THE ONE THAT’S MORE EXPENSIVE. AM I MISTAKEN? BECAUSE MY COMPUTER JUST DIED.>>REPRESENTATIVE BARTELS.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. NO, THE MOST EXPENSIVE ONE IS THE ONE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS AND THE SITE PREPARATION IN RAPID CITY.>>THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER REMARKS REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1257? HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS, QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE IS FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 1257. THOSE IN FAVOR WILL VOTE YEA. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE, AND THE MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE. AND THIS IS A 2/3 VOTE.>>REPRESENTATIVE DIEDRICH AND DUBA. Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, THERE WERE YEAS, 67, EXCUSED, 3.>>HOUSE BILL 1257, HAVING RECEIVED A 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE, MEMBERS ELECT, IS HEREBY DECLARED PASSED. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO THE TITLE? HEARING NONE, THE TITLE IS DEEMED CORRECT.>>HOUSE BILL 1260, AN ACT TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION TO CONTINUE THE VETERANS BONUS PROGRAM AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.>>HOUSE BILL 1260, HAVING HAD ITS SECOND READING, IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION AND FINAL PASSAGE. ARE THERE ANY REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE GROSS.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER, FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE. I’M HONORED TO PRESENT HOUSE BILL 1260 TO YOU ON BEHALF OF OUR VETERANS. THIS IS A BILL FROM THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNOR THAT WOULD APPROPRIATE $600,000 IN GENERAL FUNDS TO CONTINUE OUR VETERANS’ BONUS PROGRAM. AT THE CURRENT RATE OF SPENDING, THIS APPROPRIATION WOULD EXTEND THE PROGRAM FOR AN ADDITIONAL FOUR YEARS. THE BILL IS NEEDED TO CONTINUE COMPLIANCE WITH THE BONUS PROGRAM REQUIRED BY SOUTH DAKOTA CODIFIED LAW. MOST RECENTLY IN 2004, THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION PUT $4.2 MILLION WAS APPROPRIATED FOR THIS, AN ADDITIONAL 1 MILLION WAS APPROPRIATED IN THE 2012 SESSION. MAXIMUM PAYMENT TO INDIVIDUAL VETERANS IS $500 WITH ONE EXCEPTION, THOSE SERVING BEFORE A CERTAIN TIME CAN QUALIFY FOR AN EXTRA BONUS AND NOT ALL AUTOMATICALLY GET THE FULL 500, DEPENDING ON THE TIME THEY SERVED OVERSEAS. AND VETERANS’ BONUS PROGRAMS, IN GENERAL, HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE WORLD WAR I. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO HONOR OUR VETERANS BY SUPPORTING THIS AND VOTING GREEN. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER REMARKS REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1260? ANY FURTHER REMARKS? HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS, THE QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE, FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 1260, THIS IS A 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED. THOSE IN FAVOR WILL VOTE YEA. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE AND THE MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE. PLEASE FINISH VOTING.>>Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, THERE WERE YEAS, 67, EXCUSED, 3.>>HOUSE BILL 1260, HAVING RECEIVED 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS ELECT IS HEREBY DECLARED PASSED. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARD TO THE TITLE? HEARING NONE, THE TITLE’S DEEMED CORRECT.>>HOUSE BILL 1263, AN ACT TO REVISE THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NATIONAL GUARD READINESS CENTER AT THE RAPID CITY AIRPORT AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.>>HOUSE BILL 1263, HAVING HAD ITS SECOND READING, IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION AND FINAL PASSAGE. ARE THERE ANY REMARKS? AGAIN, THIS IS A 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE. REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. SO THIS BILL APPROPRIATES THE REMAINING GENERAL FUNDS NECESSARY AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL FUND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD READINESS CENTER THAT’S LOCATED OUT OF THE RAPID CITY AIRPORT. SO IF YOU REMEMBER LAST YEAR, WE APPROPRIATED THE FIRST YEAR’S WORTH OF FUNDS. THIS YEAR WE’RE APPROPRIATING THE SECOND AND THE THIRD YEAR, SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DO HAVE EXCESS REVENUE SO WE MIGHT AS WELL TAKE CARE OF THAT. THE TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR THIS IS $20 MILLION, WITH THE FEDERAL FUNDS TAKING CARE OF 15 MILLION OF THAT, AND THE REQUIRED STATE MATCH WAS ONLY $5 MILLION. THIS HAS BEEN A TOP PRIORITY FOR OUR NATIONAL GUARD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. AND IT WAS A BONUS THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO JUMP AHEAD OF A COUPLE OF STATES BECAUSE OTHER STATES WERE NOT READY, AND WE WERE READY LAST YEAR WITH OUR PLAN. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASKED, ARE YOU READY TO GO IN AND WE WERE. SO WE WERE ABLE TO JUMP AHEAD IN THE LINE AND GET GOING ON THIS BUILDING. SO THIS PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT A 58,751 WEAR AND FOOT HIGH NATIONAL GUARD READINESS CENTER. IT’S GOING TO BE STATE OF THE ART. WE HAVE THE TOP NATIONAL GUARD UNITS IN THE COUNTRY. SO I DO BELIEVE THEY DESERVE SOME UPDATED BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT EVERY NOW AND THEN. YOU KNOW, BY AND LARGE, SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT THEY HAVE ACROSS THE STATE IS GETTING VERY OUTDATED. IT’S VERY OLD. SO WE DO NEED TO UPDATE THE FACILITIES OCCASIONALLY, SO THIS IS WHAT THIS WILL DO. AND I WOULD URGE YOUR GREEN VOTE ON THIS.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1263? FURTHER REMARKS? HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS, QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE IS FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 1263. THIS IS A 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED. THOSE IN FAVOR WILL VOTE YEA. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE AND THE MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE.>>REPRESENTATIVE LATTERELL. [ Indiscernible ]>>Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, THERE WERE YEAS, 67, EXCUSED, 3.>>HOUSE BILL 1263, HAVING RECEIVED 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS ELECT IS HEREBY DECLARED PASSED. ANY QUESTIONS REGARD TO THE TITLE? HEARING NONE, THE TITLE IS DEEMED CORRECT.>>HOUSE BILL 1171, AN ACT TO ALLOW CERTAIN VETERANS TO ATTEND COURSES OFFERED AT POSTSECONDARY TECHNICAL INSTITUTES, WITHOUT PAYING OF TUITION.>>HOUSE BILL 1171, HAVING HAD ITS SECOND READING, IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION, FINAL PASSAGE. ARE THERE ANY REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE PETERSON.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. HOUSE BILL 1171 PROVIDES FOR TUITION REIMBURSEMENT FOR OUR VETERANS AT TECHNICAL INSTITUTES. CURRENTLY WE ARE PROVIDING REIMBURSEMENT FOR THEM AFTER FEDERAL FUNDS ARE EXHAUSTED AT OUR BOARD OF REGENTS FACILITIES OR UNIVERSITIES. AND I THINK WHEN THIS WAS PUT IN PLACE IT WAS JUST A AN OVERSIGHT IN THE TECHNICAL — AND THE TECHNICAL INSTITUTES WERE NOT INCLUDED. SO WE’RE JUST ASKING TO INCLUDE THE TECHNICAL INSTITUTES. THE TECHNICAL INSTITUTES SUPPORT IT, THE VETERANS SUPPORT IT. I’D ASK FOR YOUR GREEN VOTE. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1171? FURTHER REMARKS? HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS, QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE, FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 1171, THOSE IN FAVOR WILL VOTE YEA, THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE AND WE’LL PROCEED TO VOTE. SPEAKSER SIGNED HOUSE BILL 1059, AN ACT TO REVISE CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING VEHICLE DEALER LICENSING. SPEAKER IS SIGNING HOUSE BILL 1068, AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSPORTATION PERMISSION TO PROMULGATE RULES TO ALLOW CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES TO FOLLOW MOTOR VEHICLES ON A STATE HIGHWAY MORE CLOSELY THAN OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY LAW.>>REPRESENTATIVES HOWARD AND WIESE.>>SPEAKER IS SIGNING HOUSE BILL NUMBER 1092, AN ACT TO REVISE CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE REPORTS. SPEAKER IS SIGNING HOUSE BILL NUMBER 1124 AN ACT TO REQUIRE HEALTH CARE FACILITIES TO INFORM MAMMOGRAPHY PATIENTS.>>Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, YEAS, 67, EXCUSED 3.>>HOUSE BILL 1171, RECEIVING A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS ELECT. THE BILL IS PASSED. HEARING NONE, THE TITLE IS DEEMED CORRECT.>>HOUSE BILL 1176, AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF SALINE TATTOO REMOVAL BY MUNICIPALITIES.>>HOUSE BILL 1176, HAVING HAD ITS SECOND READING IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION, FINAL PASSAGE, ANY REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE DUVALL.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE. SOME THINGS IN LIFE ARE PRETTY SIMPLE TO UNDO. BUT REMOVING A TATTOO IS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES A BIT MORE EFFORT. IT USED TO BE THAT THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE A TATTOO WAS TO HAVE LASER TREATMENT, WHICH IS CONSIDERED A SURGICAL PROCEDURE. HOWEVER, NOW IT’S POSSIBLE TO USE A SALINE PROCEDURE TO REMOVE A TATTOO AND IT’S A MUCH SAFER ALTERNATIVE. CURRENT LAW ALLOWS MUNICIPALITIES THE OPTION, IF THEY WANT, OF REGULATING TATTOO PARLORS, BODY PIERCING PLACES, THINGS LIKE THIS, SO HOUSE BILL 1176 SAYS THAT MUNICIPALITIES, IF YOU ALSO WANT TO REGULATE SALINE TATTOO REMOVAL, YOU MAY. THE BILL ALSO DIRECTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO SET SOME MINIMUM SANITATION STANDARDS. SO, THIS IS ANOTHER OPTION FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO REMOVE A TATTOO. IT’S SAFER. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON HOUSE BILL 1176. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS? NO FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO A TATTOO BILL? HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS, QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE IS FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 1176. THOSE IN FAVOR WILL VOTE YEA, THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE, AND THE MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE.>>PLEASE PROCEED TO VOTE.>>REPRESENTATIVE PISCHKE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, THERE WERE YEAS, 64, NAYS, 3, EXCUSED, 3.>>HOUSE BILL 1176, HAVING RECEIVED MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS ELECT, IS HEREBY DECLARED PASSED. ANY QUESTIONS REGARD TO THE TITLE? HEARING NONE, THE TITLE’S DEEMED CORRECT.>>HOUSE BILL 1144, AN ACT TO REVISE CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN OPEN ENROLLMENT.>>HOUSE BILL 1144, HAVING HADDITY SECOND READING, IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION AND FINAL PASSAGE. ARE THERE ANY REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE FINCK.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I WILL TRY TO MAKE THIS AS BRIEF AS I CAN. BUT I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK, Mr. SPEAKER.>>AND HAS IT BEEN DISTRIBUTED?>>IT HAS.>>ARE YOU MOVING IT AT THIS TIME?>>I DO.>>SECOND.>>IT WOULD BE 1144-BB.>>THAT WAS CLOSE. IT NEARLY DID NOT GET A SECOND.>>SECOND!>>NOW THERE’S TWO. 1144-BB.>>YES, SIR.>>PLEASE SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENT.>>A LITTLE LATITUDE TO SPEAK TO BOTH THE AMENDMENT AND THE BILL.>>GO AHEAD.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I WILL TRY TO KEEP THIS AS SHORT AS I CAN. AND EXPLAIN TO YOU, FIRST OF ALL, WHY I BROUGHT THE BILL, SECOND OF ALL, WHY THE BILL IS IN ITS CURRENT FORM, AND, THIRD OF ALL, WHY THE AMENDMENT IS NEEDED. A GOOD REPRESENTATIVE TOLD ME, IF YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN TOO MUCH, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY SIT BACK DOWN. BUT I THINK THIS IS WORTH THE DISCUSSION.>>OH! [ Laughter ] FIRST OF ALL, THE REASON I BROUGHT THE BILL, THIS AROSE FROM A SITUATION THAT I OBSERVED BACK IN MY HOMETOWN, AND THERE WAS A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN WHERE OPEN ENROLLED BUSES CAN GO AND PICK UP STUDENTS AND WHATEVER. THE TWO THINGS THAT I FOUND ODD WERE, ONE, PICKUP LOCATIONS, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT THEN AND AS A LOT OF PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT, PICKUP LOCATIONS COULD NOT EXIST OUTSIDE AN INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITY, AND THE SECOND THING THAT I FOUND ODD WAS THAT IF AN AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE REACHED BETWEEN THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION GETS INVOLVED AND MAKES A DECISION FOR THEM. SO THAT’S A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY. THE CURRENT BILL, AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, IS A RESULT OF, WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, TRYING TO FIX THOSE TWO THINGS. ONE BEING TO OPEN IT UP BY STRIKING THE WORDS “INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITY” AND ALLOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO DO THESE PICKUPS ANYWHERE IN THE DISTRICT. AS LONG AS THEY’RE AGREED UPON, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. IF THEIR STUDENTS, FOR INSTANCE, ON THE VERY FAR END OF A LARGE DISTRICT THAT WANT TO OPEN ENROLL TO THE NEXT DISTRICT OVER THAT THE SCHOOL MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WASN’T ALLOWED. OKAY. NOW, IF YOU FAST FORWARD, PAST THE COMMITTEE HEARING, I GET AN EMAIL FROM A CONSTITUENT THAT SAID, THIS ISN’T HOW WE’VE INTERPRETED IT. AND I THOUGHT, OKAY. THAT’S A LITTLE INTERESTING. SO I WENT AND TALKED TO SOME FOLKS AT LRC. AND THEN LRC DRAFTER THAT I TALKED TO ALSO SAID, WELL, I COULD SEE IT BOTH WAYS. AND THAT WAS PROBABLY MY FIRST SIGN THAT THIS WAS GOING TO GO SOUTH. THE PROBLEM BEING, THE CURRENT STATUTE IS A LITTLE BIT LOOSE IN ITS INTERPRETATION, AND YOU CAN INTERPRET IT ONE OF TWO WAYS IF YOU WANT TO. AND, SO, THE AMENDMENT, THIS IS WHERE THE AMENDMENT COMES IN, HELPS TO SEEK TO CLARIFY THAT AND SAY, THIS IS HOW IT’S GOING TO BE INTERPRETED. WE’RE NOT GOING TO LET THIS BE LOOSE ANYMORE. AND, SO, THE AMENDMENT DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, UNDER THE ADDED PART WHERE IT SAYS ONE, THE LOCATION DESIGNATED BY THE RECEIVING SCHOOL DISTRICT AS THE PICKUP SITE IS NOT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF AN INCORPORATED MINE PALLET IN THE STUDENT’S SCHOOL DISTRICT OF RESIDENCE. MIEWNS PAMENT. — MUNICIPALITY. TRANSLATED THAT MEANS, IF IT’S OUTSIDE AN INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITY, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE TO MAKE THOSE PICKUP LOCATIONS. SO IN THE RURAL DISTRICTS, IF THEY WANT TO MEET OUT AT THE FIVE-MILE CORNER AND PICK EVERYBODY UP, THAT’S FINE. THEY CAN DO THAT. THEY DON’T NEED TO HAVE THESE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE TO DO THAT. THE SECOND PART SAYS, THE LOCATION DESIGNATED BY THE RECEIVING SCHOOL DISTRICT AS THE PICKUP SITE IS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITY OF THE STUDENT’S SCHOOL DISTRICT OF RESIDENCE AND, A, THE RECEIVING SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS REQUESTED OF THE BOARD OF THE STUDENT’S SCHOOL DISTRICT OF RESIDENCE APPROVED OF THE INTENDED PICKUP SITE AND THE BOARD OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF RESIDENCE HAS APPROVED THE PICKUP SITE. THIS IS THE MATTER WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT IF IT’S GOING TO BE A PICKUP LOCATION INSIDE AN INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITY, THE TWO SCHOOLS JUST SIMPLY NEED TO AGREE ON WHERE THAT PICKUP LOCATION IS GOING TO BE. THAT’S ALSO WHERE WE’RE GOING TO TAKE OUT THE REFERENCE TO, IF THEY CAN’T AGREE, THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION GETS INVOLVED AND MAKES A DETERMINATION. THIS WAS TALKED ABOUT IN COMMITTEE AT QUITE A LITTLE BIT OF LENGTH ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE DISCUSSION, AND IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT WE’RE TRYING — WHAT MY AMENDMENT — WHAT THE BILL WAS TRYING TO DO AT THE TIME WAS TO GIVE THE RESIDENCE SCHOOL DISTRICT VETO POWER. AND I WILL SUBMIT TO YOU THAT RIGHT NOW THAT VETO POWER ALREADY EXISTS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ED. THE SECRETARY GETS TO DECIDE WHO WINS AND WHO LOSES IN THESE SITUATIONS. TAKING THAT LOCAL CONTROL AWAY. I’D LIKE TO RESTORE THAT LOCAL CONTROL BACK TO THOSE SCHOOL BOARDS. AND IF THEY CAN’T GET ALONG, THAT’S TIME FOR THE CITIZENS TO STEP UP, GO TO THEIR SCHOOL BOARD MEETING AND SAY, HEY, CUT IT OUT. WE NEED THESE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE BECAUSE WE WANT TO OPEN ENROLL FOR X Y AND Z REASONS, WHY CAN’T WE HAVE THIS PICKUP LOCATION. THERE WAS ALSO SOME REFERENCE IN THE OLD STATUTE TO STUDENT SAFETY, THAT THESE PICKUP LOCATIONS ARE GOING TO BE DETERMINED FOREMOST ON STUDENT SAFETY. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE ORIGINALLY HAD TAKEN OUT, WE PUT IT BACK IN IN COMMITTEE. THE AMENDMENT LEAVES IT OUT. AND, REALLY, IT COMES DOWN TO DRAFTING. IF WE NEED TO LEGISLATE THAT THESE HAVE TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF STUDENT SAFETY, THEN I’M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS. I THINK THEY THINK ABOUT SAFETY ALL THE TIME. AND I DON’T THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THAT IN THE LEGISLATION. LEAVE THAT TO THEM. THAT’S PART OF THAT LOCAL CONTROL, THEY GET TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINES. — DETERMINATIONS. THERE WAS ONE MORE QUESTION RAISED TO ME IN THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THIS THAT SAYS, WELL, WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT RESIDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT STARTS TO DRAG THEIR FEET ON THIS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO WHATEVER. SO WE ADDED THE LAST PROVISION, “FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, IF THE BOARD OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF RESIDENCE FAILS TO APPROVE OR DENY THE INTENDED PICKUP SITE WITHIN 30 DAYS, THE PICKUP SITE IS DEEMED TO BE APPROVED. ANY APPROVAL YOU SHOULD THIS SECTION REMAINS VALID UNTIL THE SUCCEEDING JUNE 30th.” WHICH SIMPLY SAYS THESE AGREEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE RENEWED EVERY YEAR AS THEY ARE NOW AND IF A SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUESTS THERE BE A PICKUP LOCATION AND THE OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICT JUST DOESN’T ACT ON THAT AND IGNORES IT, THEY’RE OKAY WITH IT. THAT’S WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO. SO, WITH THAT SAID, I THINK THAT EXPLAINS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY THE BILL IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHY THE CHANGE FROM CURRENTLY TO WHAT I HAVE PROPOSED IN THIS AMENDMENT, AND I’LL STAND BY FOR SOME QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE BODY.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1144? AND WE’RE SPEAKING TO BOTH THE AMENDMENT AND THE MAIN BILL AT THIS POINT. REPRESENTATIVE LATTERELL.>>THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR THE SPONSOR.>>PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION.>>MY QUESTION IS REGARDING THE MOST EGREGIOUS PROBLEM THAT EXISTS UNDER THE CURRENT SITUATION. RIGHT NOW THE SECRETARY CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION, IF THEY CAN’T REACH AN AGREEMENT. IS THERE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH CERTAIN DISTRICT WHERE THAT PICKUP LOCATION IS JUST COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE?>>REPRESENTATIVE FINCK.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. THANK YOU, THE GOOD REPRESENTATIVE FROM LINCOLN COUNTY FOR THE QUESTION. THERE HAVE BEEN FIVE CASES OF THIS IN THE PAST FEW YEARS THAT HAVE GONE TO THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION TO HAVE THIS NEGOTIATED OR DECISION MADE. TWO OF THOSE CASES THE SCHOOL BOARDS DECIDED WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO ALL ON THEIR OWN. THE OTHER THREE, THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION GOT INVOLVED AND MADE THESE DETERMINATIONS. IN ALL THREE OF THOSE SITUATIONS, SOMEBODY GOT THEIR WAY AND SOMEBODY DIDN’T GET THEIR WAY. IN THE SITUATION THAT I’M REFERRING TO, WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THERE’S A SCHOOL THAT’S COMING INTO TOWN, DRIVES RIGHT DOWN MAIN STREET, PICKS UP KIDS RIGHT ON THE CORNER. AND THE SIMPLE ASK WAS, COULD WE MOVE THAT PICKUP LOCATION TO A LITTLE DIFFERENT PLACE BECAUSE THE TIME IS REALLY REVIVING, RALLYING AROUND THE SCHOOL, RALLYING AROUND THE TOWN, TRYING TO BRING THE TOWN MORALE UP, WE’VE LOST OUR NURSING HOME IN THE LAST YEAR, WE LOST OUR GROCERY STORE, FOUGHT REALLY HARD TO BRING THAT BACK, THE SCHOOL WAS IN JEOPARDY, WE PASSED A DOUBLE OPT-OUT, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT OPT-OUTS EARLIER, WE ARE OPERATING UNDER TWO OPT-OUTS RIGHT NOW. AND WITH ALL THAT, THE NEIGHBORING SCHOOL DISTRICT IS SENDING THEIR BUS RIGHT DOWN MAIN STREET EVERY MORNING TO PICK KIDS UP. I’M NOT SAYING THAT THOSE STUDENTS SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO OPEN ENROLL FOR WHATEVER REASONS THEY WANT TO OPEN ENROLL. THAT’S PERFECTLY FINEMENT. BUT THE OUTCRY THAT I’M HEARING FROM THE TAXPAYERS IN MY SCHOOL DISTRICT IS THAT WHY IS IT OKAY THAT THEY DO THIS AND IF WE JUST MADE ONE SIMPLE REQUEST TO MOVE THE LOCATION JUST TO THE EDGE OF TOWN, WHICH ISN’T ANY UNDUE BURDEN, THEY’RE ALL DRIVING UP TO THE ELEVATOR PARKING LOT RIGHT NOW, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT REQUEST. THEY DID MAKE THAT REQUEST. IT WAS DENIED. AND THEN WHEN IT WENT TO THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, THEY SAID, NO, WE’RE JUST GOING TO GO WITH IT. SO THAT WAS THE SITUATION. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE DEUTSCH.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. ONE OF THE FIRST LESSONS I LEARNED AS A LEGISLATOR, A PEARL OF WISDOM, IF YOU WILL, IS THAT LOCAL PROBLEMS ARE BEST SOLVED LOCALLY. AND THE GOOD REPRESENTATIVE WAS PASSIONATE IN HIS EXPLANATION AND PROVIDED US A REASON WHY HE’S BRINGING THE BILL. BECAUSE THERE’S A DISAGREEMENT IN HIS HOMETOWN. SO, WE HAVE A DISAGREEMENT LOCALLY. DO WE BRING A BILL THAT IMPACTS THE ENTIRE STATE? AND I GUESS THAT’S THE REAL QUESTION THAT I HAVE TO ASK. OPEN ENROLLMENT IS WORKING WELL. I’VE GOTTEN UMPTEEN EMAIL FROM MY SUPERINTENDENTS. I REPRESENT NINE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHO ARE AFRAID THAT FOR SMALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THIS BILL WILL UNDERMINE THE ABILITY TO OPEN ENROLL. AND I WANT TO JUST SHARE WITH YOU JUST A SNIPPET OF A SENTENCE FROM AN EMAIL I RECEIVED FROM A PARENT. SO LET’S THINK ABOUT HOW THIS IMPACTS PARENTS. A PARENT’S ABILITY TO CHOOSE THE BEST EDUCATIONAL FIT FOR HIS OR HER CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE HAMPERED BY A POSSIBLE INABILITY OF TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO AGREE ON THE LOCATION TO PICK UP THEIR CHILDREN. SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO PLEASE VOTE RED ON THIS. THIS IS JUST NOT A GOOD IDEA. I UNDERSTAND THERE’S A CHALLENGE IN A LOCAL DISTRICT. THOSE DISTRICTS, THEY NEED TO GET ALONG AND IF THEY CAN’T, THEY HAVE A REFEREE. IF WE PULL THE RUG OUT FROM THE REFEREE, WHAT HAPPENS? WHAT HAPPENS TO LOCAL CONTROL IN OUR STATE? WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR ABILITY TO OPEN ENROLL OUR CHILDREN? SO, I THANK YOU AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A RED VOTE.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS? FURTHER REMARKS REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1144? REPRESENTATIVE HUNHOFF.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. QUESTION FOR THE SPONSOR.>>PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION.>>THANK YOU. IF THE SCHOOL, THE RECEIVING SCHOOL SAYS NO, BECAUSE THE LAST SENTENCE SAYS “EITHER APPROVE OR DENY,” IF THE RECEIVING SCHOOL SAYS NO, AND DENIES, WHAT HAPPENS THEN?>>REPRESENTATIVE FINCK, DO YOU WISH TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?>>I DO. SO IF THEY DENY WHERE THAT PICKUP LOCATION IS, THIS JUST GOES BACK TO SQUARE ONE, THAT THEY NEED TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATING ON WHERE THAT PICKUP LOCATION SHOULD BE. MAYBE THEY COUNTER BACK AND SAY, WELL, WE DON’T WANT IT TO BE HERE. WE PREFER THAT IT BE OVER ON THIS CORNER, OR THIS CORNER, HERE, HERE, HERE, WHATEVER THAT CASE MAY BE. IT JUST SAYS “CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE PROBLEM UNTIL IT’S RESOLVED.”>>FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE HUNHOFF.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER. WELL, I’M NOT GOING TO BE POLLYANNAISH ABOUT THIS, WE HAVE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT IS ARE COMING IN OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BUILD STUDENT ENROLLMENT. I’M NOT DENYING ANY OF THAT. BUT I’M CONCERNED HERE THAT YOU’RE FORCING THIS RECEIVING SCHOOL TO CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE WHEN THEY SAY NO, NO IS NO. THAT’S LOCAL CONTROL. BUT HERE WE’RE SAYING, NO, YOU GOT TO KEEP WORKING IT OUT. AND THAT’S A LOT OF MORE FRUSTRATION AND TIME. YOU KNOW, IN THE EARLIER PART HERE, IT SAYS “OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT,” I QUESTIONS MY OTHER — GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION ON THAT IS, YOU CAN DO THAT, WHERE’S THE SAFETY OF THE CHILD? YOU SAY A FIVE-MILE CORNER, WHATEVER, I’M LOOKING AT A FIVE-MILE CORNER, WHO’S THEN ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT STUDENT IF THEY’RE WAITING FOR THAT RECEIVING SCHOOL THAT’S OUTSIDE A MUNICIPALITY AND SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THOSE KIDS? WHO STANDS THE LIABILITY? I GUESS I THINK THIS COMPLICATES, MUDDIES THIS. IF A SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVING SAYS, NO, AND THEY CAN’T WORK IT OUT, THEN THE ANSWER IS NO. THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS REGARD TO HOUSE BILL 1144? AND WE’RE ADDRESSING THE AMENDMENT FIRST. LET’S DO THAT NOW. HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO THE AMENDMENT, UNLESS, REPRESENTATIVE FINCK, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT ANY FURTHER? HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS IN REGARD TO THE AMENDMENT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY YEA. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY.>>ROLL CALL.>>ROLL CALL. AND ARE YOU SUPPORTED IN THAT — MY REQUEST FOR ROLL CALL. 12 MEMBERS NEED TO STAND. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, 12 MEMBERS. ROLL CALL IS SUPPORTED. LET’S PROCEED TO A ROLL CALL VOTE. IN REGARD TO THE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED AS 1144-BB, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT WILL VOTE YEA. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE. THE MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE. THIS IS JUST IN REGARD TO THE AMENDMENT. IT’S NOT FINAL PASSAGE, BUT JUST IN REGARD TO THE AMENDMENT. THIS IS IN REGARD TO THE AMENDMENT H.B. 1144-BB, THOSE IN FAVOR, YEA, THOSE OPPOSED, NAY.>>REPRESENTATIVE SABA. Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, THERE WERE YEAS, 39. NAYS, 28. EXCUSED, 3.>>HOUSE BILL — THE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE BILL 1144 IDENTIFIED AS 1144-BB, HAVING RECEIVED MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS ELECT IS HEREBY DECLARED PASSED. NOW, IN REGARD TO H.B. 1144 AS AMENDED, FINAL VOTE ON H.B. 1144 AS AMENDED. ANY FURTHER REMARKS? REPRESENTATIVE FINCK.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I GUESS I’LL CLOSE THIS OUT. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU FOR THE LITTLE BIT OF DEBATE ON THIS. THIS IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT. THIS IS A STATUTE THAT’S ALREADY IN LAW. I’M SEEKING TO TRY AND CLARIFY A FEW THINGS THAT ARE ABOUT THIS. AND, REALLY, THE COMMENT MADE ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL THAT LOCAL PROBLEMS ARE BEST SOLVED LOCALLY, YES, THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING. LET THE LOCALS DECIDE WHAT IS BEST IN THESE SITUATIONS. WHEN WE GIVE — WE GIVE UP THAT CONTROL WHEN WE LET THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION COME IN AND MAKE THAT DECISION FOR THOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THAT LOCAL CONTROL AT THAT MOMENT IS GONE. THAT’S WHERE THAT VETO POWER EXISTS. SO, I WOULD URGE YOUR GREEN VOTE ON THIS. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS. VOTE GREEN ON HOUSE BILL 1144 AS AMENDED. THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER.>>THANK YOU. HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS, QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE, FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 1144 AS AMENDED. THOSE IN FAVOR WILL VOTE YEA. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE, AND THE MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, THERE WERE YEAS, 20, NAYS, 47, EXCUSED, 3.>>HOUSE BILL 1144, AS AMENDED, NOT HAVING RECEIVED A MAJORITY VOTE OF MEMBERS ELECT, IS HEREBY DECLARED LOST.>>REPRESENTATIVE QUALM MOVES THAT HOUSE BILL 1118 BE DEFERRED TO WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20th, 2019. THE 26th LEGISLATIVE DAY.>>SECOND.>>THAT MOTION HAVING BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NO DISCUSSION, THOSE IN FAVOR SAY YEA. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES. WE’LL TAKE ONE MORE BILL, AND THAT IS SENATE BILL 36. GO AHEAD.>>SENATE BILL 36, AN ACT TO REVISE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE WORKERS COMPENSATION ADVISORY COUNCIL.>>SENATE BILL NUMBER 36, HAVING HAD ITS SECOND READING, IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION, FINAL PASSAGE. ARE THERE ANY REMARKS?>>Mr. SPEAKER.>>REPRESENTATIVE MISKIMINS.>>Mr. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, SENATE BILL 36 IS AN ACT TO REVISE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE WORKERS COMPENSATION ADVISORY BOARD. WHAT SENATE BILL 36 DOES IS CHANGES THE MEMBERSHIP OF STATE WORKERS COMPENSATION ADVISORY COUNCIL BY ALLOWING THE GOVERNOR TO APPOINT AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE THE NINTH VOTING MEMBER AND CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL. RATHER THAN THE CURRENT STRUCTURE REQUIRING THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR TO BE A MEMBER AND BE CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL. IT WILL CONTINUE THE WORKERS COMPENSATION ADVISORY COUNCIL’S PURPOSE, WHICH IS TO HELP THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND REGULATION BY REVIEWING THE WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM’S CONTENT, ADEQUACY AND EFFECTIVENESS. THE COUNCIL REPORTS ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GOVERNOR AND TO THE LEGISLATURE. SENATE BILL 36 WILL BRING ADDITIONAL WORKERS COMPENSATION EXPERIENCE TO THE COUNCIL. THIS BILL PASSED THE SENATE 34-0. AND PASSED THE COMMERCE AND ENERGY COMMITTEE 13-0. I ASK YOU TO PLEASE VOTE GREEN ON SENATE BILL 36.>>THANK YOU. FURTHER REMARKS REGARD TO SENATE BILL NUMBER 36? HEARING NO FURTHER REMARKS, QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE IS FINAL PASSAGE OF SENATE BILL NUMBER 36, THOSE IN FAVOR WILL VOTE YEA, THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE VOTING MACHINE, AND THE MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE.>>REPRESENTATIVE CHASE. Mr. SPEAKER, ALL MEMBERS PRESENT HAVE VOTED.>>PLEASE DISPLAY THE VOTE.>>Mr. SPEAKER, THERE WERE YEAS, 61, NAYS, 6, EXCUSED, 3.>>SENATE BILL NUMBER 36, HAVING RECEIVED MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS ELECT IS HEREBY DECLARED PASSED. ANY QUESTIONS REGARD TO THE TITLE? HEARING NONE, THE TITLE’S DEEMED CORRECT.>>Mr. SPEAKER.>>REPRESENTATIVE QUALM.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. I MOVE WE DEFER THE REMAINDER OF THE CALENDAR TO WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20th, THE 26th LEGISLATIVE DAY.>>THAT MOTION, HAVING BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION CARRIED. WE CAN KEEP SOME AFTER SCHOOL IF WE’D LIKE AND WORK ON SOME MORE CALENDAR ITEMS. ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? REPRESENTATIVE GREENFIELD.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. FIRST OF ALL, THERE WILL BE NO CAPITAL COMMISSION TONIGHT AT PERKINS, CAPITAL COMMISSION HAS BEEN CANCELED. TOMORROW MORNING, HOUSE EDUCATION MEETS BRIGHT AND EARLY, 7:35 A.M. PLEASE BE ON TIME. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSON.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. HOUSE WILL MEET 30 MINUTES FOLLOWING THE END OF OUR SESSION . I THINK — ACTUALLY IT MIGHT BE 15 MINUTES. IN ROOM 362. THANKS.>>ROOM 362, IN 15 MINUTES.>>TOMORROW MORNING, CATACOMB CAUCUS, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN JENSEN IS GOING TO BE BRINGING OUR SPECIAL MESSAGE. 7:00 IN THE LARGE GOVERNOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM.>>TOMORROW MORNING, 7:00, GOVERNOR’S LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM, CATACOMB CAUCUS, REPRESENTATIVE HANSEN. PLEASE GIVE ATTENTION TO THE ANNOUNCEMENTS.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Mr. SPEAKER. TOMORROW MORNING, AT 10:00 A.M., ROOM 413, HOUSE JUDICIARY WILL MEET. IT IS LOOKING LIKE IT WILL GO A LITTLE BEYOND TWO HOURS. SO COMMITTEE, PLEASE BE PREPARED TO WORK A LITTLE OVERTIME. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS? REPRESENTATIVE BEAL.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. SOUTH DAKOTA ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATIONS, THE LEGISLATIVE SOCIAL IS TONIGHT, 5:00 TO 7:00, RAMKOTA HOTEL, GALLERY D AND E.>>THANK YOU.>>Mr. SPEAKER.>>REPRESENTATIVE QUALM.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS, 7:30 TOMORROW, WE’VE GOT ABOUT SIX HOURS OF STUFF, WE GOT TO CRAM IN TWO. SO BE READY.>>VERY GOOD. REPRESENTATIVE ROUNDS.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. YOUR HOUSE COMMERCE AND ENERGY COMMITTEE WILL BE MEETING AT 10:00 A.M. USUAL PLACE, USUAL LOCATION. TOMORROW, IT’S ALCOHOL DAY AT COMMERCE COMMITTEE. COME ON UP AND JOIN THE FUN. AND IF I MAY, Mr. SPEAKER, I MESSED UP TODAY. I FAILED THE PRO TEM IN GIVING HIM A YIELD ON TIME. SO, THE CHOCOLATE BAR IS GOING BACK.>>IS THAT THE SAME CHOCOLATE BAR? OKAY. SOMEBODY SHOULD — SOMEBODY SHOULD PROBABLY DIG INTO THAT. IT’S ONE BIG SMORE. REPRESENTATIVE HUNHOFF.>>THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE INTERESTED, TOMORROW MORNING IN JOINT APPROPRIATIONS, WE WILL HAVE AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING ON THE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH PART, IT’S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN AND GET EDUCATED ABOUT WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THAT AND WE WILL BE STARTING AT THAT AT 10:00. SO GIVE YOU A BREAK IN THE MORNING, COME ON OVER. THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS? ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS? REPRESENTATIVE STEELE.>>Mr. SPEAKER!>>REPRESENTATIVE STEELE.>>I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN.>>A MOTION HAVING BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIED. HAD TO BE A LITTLE QUICKER THAN THAT. WE ARE ADJOURNED.>>”STATEHOUSE” PROGRAM FUNDING PROVIDED BY. THE SOUTH DAKOTA BAR FOUNDATION, THE EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE ARM OF SOUTH DAKOTA LAWYERS AND JUDGES. $d$ÁppÁ$dppÁ$d$ÁppÁ$dppÁppÁppÁpP Ád (narrator)
Chain gangs continued deep
into the 20th century,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *