JOURNAL OF THE SENATE

SEVENTY-SIXTH  SESSION




FORTIETH DAY




STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Senate Chamber, Pierre
Wednesday, March 21, 2001

     The Senate convened at 9:00 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, the President presiding.

     The prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Pastor Jeff Porter, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Senate page Mary Kurtz.

     Roll Call: All members present.

APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL


MADAM PRESIDENT:

     The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the Secretary of the Senate has had under consideration the Senate Journal of the thirty-ninth 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,
Arnold M. Brown, Chair

     Which motion prevailed and the report was adopted.
    The President announced that the following pages will serve for the 40th legislative day:
Kari Bender, Steven Hofer, Emily Kerr, Mary Kurtz, Amanda Moore, Nisa Schwiesow, Tony Venhuizen, Jody Veurink, and Matthew Wolff.


COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS

March 6, 2001

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501

Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 175 and VETO the same.

Senate Bill 175 is entitled, "An Act to exempt from sales and use tax certain contract services provided to agricultural producers by an agent of a parent company through a local contracting entity."

This bill violates a basic rule that has been followed for decades in South Dakota. That rule is "No one ever, ever passes legislation in the middle of litigation to resolve the litigation." Senate Bill 175 is unfair. If an agricultural specialist not employed by a cooperative provided this service to a cooperative or to a noncooperative, it would be taxable. The State taxes many kinds of services. We should be blind to what form of service is provided. Service is service no matter who provides it. We should stop carving out deals for special constituencies.

Secondly, the Department of Revenue estimates this sales tax exemption will cost the taxpayers of South Dakota between $500,000 and $1,000,000 in taxes.

Thirdly, any other business would consider this tax to be a cost of doing business. Some proponents of the bill contend no one else has to pay this tax. The proponents' logic is that if an owner purchases any product from a company he has stock in, that owner should be exempt from paying sales and use tax. However, if any other business owner contracts with another business for marketing services, the first business pays the tax. If you use the logic of the proponents of this bill, a business owner would be exempt from the tax if he owned stock in the business.

The issue addressed by Senate Bill 175 is currently before the South Dakota Supreme Court. The Court will clarify whether the services of a production specialist are taxable or exempt. If the Court concludes that the transaction is exempt, then Senate Bill 175 would simply be superfluous language and could result in further ambiguity. If the Court concludes that the services provided by production specialists are taxable, then the proponents of Senate Bill 175 certainly have the right to bring a similar bill before a future Legislature.



In South Dakota, a broad-based sales tax is imposed on business services. This philosophy is designed to apportion fairly the sales tax among all so that no one industry is unfairly taxed or unfairly exempted. Senate Bill 175 carves out an exemption for a specific class of persons in an industry, while leaving the tax on all others within the same industry. Those taxpayers who are not parent cooperatives but provide production specialist services would continue to be liable for the sales tax. This is not fair or right, and I will not sign a bill that provides a tax exemption to a portion of a business industry, while denying that same exemption to others in the industry.

Because the South Dakota Constitution allows only five days for me to make decisions on more than 180 bills that were delivered during the last week of session, I may supplement this message with more information when the Legislature convenes on March 21, 2001.

I respectfully request that you concur with my action.


Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Governor

March 6, 2001

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070

Dear President Hillard and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 179 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to revise the appeal procedure concerning the factor used for valuing agricultural and nonagricultural property."

It is important to review the history of Senate Bill 179. Senate Bill 179 began as an amendment to SDCL 10-13-37.2, the statute which explains how to appeal the factor of SDCL 10-13-37.1. An attempted appeal of an SDCL 10-13-37.1 factor was taken from the office of hearing examiners to circuit court, with the appeal filed in Hughes County, NOT the county where the property was located. The circuit court dismissed the appeal because the attorney failed to understand the current law correctly. I find it absurd and self-serving as anything could ever be for an attorney to take a case, then lose the case because the attorney does not know the proper law on venue, and then seek to change the statute to remedy the failure of the lawyer to know the venue statutes.

There are two further problems with Senate Bill 179. First, there is a problem with the title. In the case of South Dakota Education Association/NEA v. Barnett 582 NW2d 386, 393 (SD 1998), our Supreme Court decided just two years ago to overturn a legislative action based on a deficient title. The title of Senate Bill 179 is, "An Act to revise the appeal procedure concerning the factor used for valuing agricultural and nonagricultural property." The

amendment contained in Section 1 is the addition of the following sentence: "The secretary of revenue shall calculate all factors pursuant to this section no later than March first." The amendment found in Section 1 provides a time limit in which the secretary of revenue is to do his job of determining a factor pursuant to SDCL 10-13-37.1. The title of Senate Bill 179, however, fails to instruct you or the public that the bill includes a time deadline for the secretary of revenue to determine the SDCL 10-13-37.1 factor. Thus, Senate Bill 179 is in violation of South Dakota Constitution Article III, § 21: "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." To again paraphrase the South Dakota Supreme Court, the act is unconstitutional because the title conspicuously fails to:

    (a)    Prevent the combining into one bill of several diverse measures which have no common basis except, perhaps, their separate inability to receive a favorable vote on their own merits;
    (b)    Prevent the unintentional and unknowing passage of provisions inserted in a bill of which the title gives no intimation; and,
    (c)    Apprise the public of matters which are contained in the various bills and to prevent fraud or deception of the public as to matters being considered by the Legislature.

South Dakota Education Association/NEA v. Barnett, 582 NW2d 386, 393 (SD 1998). See also South Dakota Physician's Health Group v. State ex rel. Department of Health, 447 NW2d 511 (SD 1989); Daugaard v. Baltic Cooperative Building Supply Association, 349 NW2d 419 (SD 1984); and McMacken v. State, 320 NW2d 131 (SD 1982).

The second issue is Senate Bill 179 would permit an appeal of the SDCL 10-13-37.1 factor to the circuit court in the county where the property is located or to the circuit court for Hughes County. There is no rational basis why a factor appeal for real property located in Perkins County should be heard in Hughes County. The circuit court for Hughes County is already burdened with many cases arising out of the operation of state government. Why should the circuit court in Hughes County hear an appeal regarding a Perkins County factor? We could just as easily name the circuit court for Union County as the place to hear a Perkins County factor appeal. Permitting an appeal to the circuit court for Hughes County based upon the convenience of lawyers who practice in Pierre is not a viable reason for the enactment of this legislation.

Because the South Dakota Constitution allows only five days for me to make decisions on more than 180 bills that were delivered during the last week of session, I may supplement this message with more information when the Legislature convenes on March 21, 2001.

I respectfully request that you concur with my action.

Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Governor


March 6, 2001

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 212 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to revise certain provisions regarding reduced tuition for certain state employees."

1)    State employees already get a break on tuition after three years' continuous employment; this is unfair to the other students that have to make up the difference through higher tuition;

2)    The bill is unfair to state employees who don't live in or near a public university;

3)    The bill increases the subsidy that is already being paid by taxpayers for state employees who live in or near a public university;

4)    The bill is unfair to the students and the taxpayers who are paying student tuition bills every semester because they are paying the full amount of tuition wherever they live;

5)    The bill is an unfunded mandate on the higher education system.

I respectfully request that you concur with my action and vote "no" on the motion to override this veto.

Because the South Dakota Constitution allows only five days for me to make decisions on more than 180 bills that were delivered during the last week of session, I may supplement this message with more information when the Legislature convenes on March 21, 2001.

Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Governor

March 15, 2001

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:


I have returned Senate Bill 212 and VETOED the same. It is, "An Act to revise certain provisions regarding reduced tuition for certain state employees." This expanded version supplements that veto message.

                                1.    Senate Bill 212 provides an extra special reward to state employees who have worked for the state for only one year.
            
Current law allows state employees a 50 percent reduction in tuition for on-campus, public university courses after three years of employment. This bill would mandate tuition reductions after only one year of employment. The reward of 50 percent reduced tuition is too high for only one year's service.

        2.    Senate Bill 212 is an insult to all the other students and their families who must pay the full tuition rate.
        
    Almost all other public university students pay the full tuition rate for courses. Many of them have depleted their own savings and their family's savings, worked at one or more jobs, and borrowed money to pay the full tuition amounts. Giving 50 percent tuition reductions to people who just happen to have worked for the state for one year is an insult to all of those other students and their families. State government work is no better or no worse than any other public sector or private sector work. It should not have an extra special reward attached to it.

3.    Senate Bill 212 provides little or no benefit to the state's taxpayers.
            
Nothing is free. The fact that the state employee pays for only one-half of the tuition cost means that the cost of that reduction will be paid by someone else. If other students don't pay for it in higher tuition rates, then it will be paid by the state's taxpayers. Because there is no requirement that the state employee take courses that are job-related, Senate Bill 212 provides little or no benefit to the state's taxpayers. Why should taxpayers subsidize a state employee's training when that training won't improve the employee's effectiveness in his or her state job? The state's taxpayers should get something in return for giving someone a 50 percent tuition reduction.

4.    Senate Bill 212 is unfair to most state employees because they have no opportunity to     receive the extra special reward.
    Because the tuition reduction is for only on-campus classes, realistically only state employees who live in or near a public university campus town can take advantage of this extra special reward. State employees who live in places like Lemmon, Buffalo, Dupree, Pierre, Philip, Winner, Gregory, Chamberlain, Gettysburg, Huron, Sisseton, and many other towns will not be able to take on-campus courses because the commuting is too expensive and disruptive to their daily lives. Therefore, it is unfair to all of the other state employees who don't live in or near a campus town. State employees should not be rewarded simply because they happen to live in or near a public university campus town. Rewards should be based on achievement, not the luck of location.

         5.    The bill is an unfunded mandate on the higher education system.
        
    Because costs will be incurred, the Board of Regents will be forced into asking for more appropriations in future years to pay for these costs.


I am not opposed to special rewards for state employees based on achievement, but I am opposed to extra special rewards at the expense of other state employees and the taxpayers

I respectfully request that you concur with my action.

Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Governor

March 6, 2001

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:

I returned Senate Bill 228 and VETOED the same. It is, "An Act to provide for DNA testing for certain inmates for the purposes of determining whether they may have been wrongfully convicted."

Senate Bill 228 should not become law because:

1.    The South Dakota Supreme Court has already established the guidelines whereby inmates can request post-conviction DNA tests for the purpose of determining whether they may have been wrongfully convicted. This bill is completely unnecessary.

2.     The taxpayers will be forced to pay outrageously high bills for unnecessary testing. Because many inmates are indigent, and because this bill doesn't stipulate who pays for DNA testing, the taxpayers will get stuck with bills that will be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

3.    It prolongs the agony of the victims of violent crime. Senate Bill 228 only serves to put into statute a provision that allows violent offenders to flood the judicial system with meritless habeas corpus petitions. We must have finality for the victims of crime. They deserve nothing less.

Current Guidelines Already in Place

Senate Bill 228 is not necessary because South Dakota law already provides mechanisms to obtain DNA or other scientific testing that might establish one's innocence.

At the pre-trial stage, South Dakota's rules of evidence already provide the structure to obtain DNA testing prior to conviction.


1 *      The Court can appoint experts (DNA experts, for example) under SDCL 19-15-9,
2 *      The parties can agree on the experts under SDCL 19-15-11, and
3 *      The experts can file reports and testify at trial under SDCL 19-15-12 to 19-15-13.

Any defendant is free to present any relevant evidence that might exonerate him or her at the time of the trial. This includes DNA evidence.

Every inmate in a South Dakota correctional facility has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or has voluntarily entered a plea of guilty. Additionally, each inmate at the time of his or her conviction had the absolute right to appeal the conviction to the South Dakota Supreme Court. Considerable attention has therefore been given to the guilt or innocence of every South Dakota inmate_ taking all evidence into consideration. That is why the South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that post-conviction DNA testing should be limited. The South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that inmates CAN OBTAIN DNA testing following a conviction if:

4 *      the testing meets the general criteria for reliability and relevance applicable to scientific evidence,
5 *      the evidence would be admissible in a trial,
6 *      a favorable test result would likely lead to an acquittal in a new trial, or
7 *      testing does not pose an unreasonable burden on the state. Davi v. Class , 609 N.W.2d 107, 112-13 (S.D. 200); Jenner v. Dooley, 590 N.W.2d 463, 472 (S.D. 1999).

If an inmate truly feels he or she was wrongfully imprisoned_and feels there is new DNA evidence available to exonerate the inmate_the legal structure is already in place to help prove innocence.

Additionally, in the event an inmate's post-conviction petition for DNA testing is denied at the state level, appellate options are available under the federal judicial system.

Major Problems with the Bill_Who Qualifies and Who Pays the Bills

A major problem with Senate Bill 228 is that the bill allows ANY inmate convicted of a felony in the state penitentiary system, or in our county jails, to petition the court for DNA testing_even if DNA testing isn't remotely applicable to the inmate's crime and conviction. Although the judge can rule that the inmate isn't entitled to a hearing, the judge must deal with every request as outlined in the bill. As this bill is written, even those inmates who have pleaded guilty to their crimes can request DNA testing and the court is required to review their petitions.

Another major problem with Senate Bill 228 is that it does not establish who is responsible for picking up the expense of the requested DNA tests. The bill does not make the inmate responsible for any costs_whether the tests are favorable to them or not. The bill also stipulates that if an inmate is indigent, the court may appoint legal counsel. Who will end up paying the bills? The taxpayers will.

Proponents of Senate Bill 228 claim the taxpayers shouldn't be concerned with the testing expenses because the State Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) forensics laboratory is

certified to conduct complex DNA tests and this certification allows for minimal costs_only $100 per sample according to the proponents.

These claims are false and ludicrous.

First, as of today, our state forensics lab does not meet DNA certification standards established by the National DNA Advisory Board. This means we cannot offer law enforcement and the judicial system the results of the accepted standard forensic DNA test known as the "13 Core DNA STR Loci." If one is testing a forensic DNA sample (to see if it originated from a certain person) and all 13 Core STR DNA Loci results are obtained, the test results allow one to match the same 13 Core STR DNA Loci (specific DNA markers) unique to that same individual's chromosomes. Only identical twins will share the same genetic makeup.

Our state forensics lab has, for some time, been undergoing the process to meet the standards established by the DNA Advisory Board which would allow them to begin offering forensic DNA testing "in-house" (like the 13 Core STR DNA Loci). However, we are not there today.
Second, we are clueless as to where the proponents of Senate Bill 228 came to the conclusion that a 13 Core STR DNA Loci test costs $100.

Because our state forensics lab does not yet meet certification standards to conduct 13 Core STR DNA Loci tests, the state contracts with private DNA testing laboratories. One contract laboratory is GENESCREEN, INC., of Dallas, Texas. The charge for one sample test is $595. This is a discount rate offered because the State of South Dakota contracts with GENESCREEN to analyze our Convicted Offenders DNA Database (SDCL 23-5-16). The standard charge is $700 for one sample test. Keep in mind, this is only one test. The cost does not include personnel costs, instrument costs, and other lab-associated costs.

In the past, the state forensics lab has also utilized the services of CELLMARK DIAGNOSTICS, Germantown, Maryland, and LabCorp, Triangle Park, North Carolina. CELLMARK charges $1,095 per sample for a 13 Core STR DNA Loci test. If for some reason a court of law requires a 10-day turnaround on this test, there's an additional $800 charge. LabCorp charges $1,000 for the test. It charges an additional $250_$500 for a quick turnaround. At times, other private DNA testing labs hired by the State have exceeded $1,500 per forensic sample.

Another pressing question not addressed by Senate Bill 228 is how many DNA tests an inmate is entitled to. One? Two? Three? Or more? Oftentimes in a crime scene, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of potential items that could be subject to DNA testing. Blood, body fluids, skin, hair, and fingerprints can exist on hundreds of items. Is an inmate entitled to have all of these items tested? Senate Bill 228 doesn't tell us. Can inmates keep requesting tests on different pieces of evidence until they find a result they like?

When DNA testing is offered into evidence at trial, there are expert witnesses called to argue either the merits or inefficacy of the DNA evidence. These expert witnesses are not cheap. Ed Blake, of Forensics Science Associates of Richmond, California, has worked as an expert DNA witness for defense and prosecuting attorneys in South Dakota. Forensics Science Associates charge a minimum consultation fee of $350 per case. They charge a $500 minimum fee per case

for laboratory work. They charge $175 for laboratory analysis and consultation. They charge $1,400 a day for field investigation work. And, for providing depositions or testimony in a court of law, they charge a half day minimum price of $700. Who pays all of these extraordinary charges if an inmate demands expert witnesses? Senate Bill 228 doesn't tell us.

We know who will get stuck with the thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of charges. It is you and I, the taxpayer. Senate Bill 228 does nothing but give inmates a free ride to clog the court system with frivolous petitions while sticking the taxpayer with the bill.

In its wisdom, our South Dakota Supreme Court established a sound structure for inmates to obtain post conviction DNA tests. We should not muddle into an arena where the system is working perfectly fine.

We Must Have Finality

Senate Bill 228 accomplishes nothing and simply creates an open invitation for inmates to request DNA tests that result in burdensome costs to the taxpayers. Our justice system, the victims of crime, and South Dakota taxpayers deserve finality.

With this in mind, I respectfully request that you concur with my action.

Because the South Dakota Constitution allows only five days for me to make decisions on more than 180 bills that were delivered during the last week of session, I may supplement this message with more information when the Legislature convenes on March 21, 2001.

Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Governor

March 6, 2001

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 239 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to establish the regents scholarship program and provide for its funding."

    1.    South Dakota Constitution, Article VI, Section 3 states:
                 No money or property of the state shall be given or appropriated for the         benefit of any sectarian or religious society or institution.


    2.    South Dakota Constitution, Article VIII, Section 16 states:
             No appropriation of lands, money or other property or credits to aid any         sectarian school shall ever be made by the state, or any county or municipality         within the state, nor shall the state or any county or municipality within the state         accept any grant, conveyance, gift or bequest of lands, money or other property         to be used for sectarian purposes, and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed         in any school or institution aided or supported by the state.

    3.    Because the Board of Regents is not currently controlling the annual tuition increases at private institutions and because private institutions currently use the practice of "discounting" whereby tuition is much higher than actual costs, a Regents Scholar attending a private institution will not receive the full monetary benefit of a Regents Scholarship.

                    4.    Public tax dollars should be used to support public educational institutions. The taxpayers of South Dakota maintain six public universities and four technical institutes. Until they are fully funded to meet the needs of their students, we should give them all of the money available for post-secondary education or none at all, which would close them down.

                    5.    Private institutions claim they want to be separate and private from public institutions, but as soon as they receive these public funds, they will be constitutionally and legally under the control of the South Dakota Board of Regents.

I respectfully request that you concur with my action and vote "no" on the motion to override this veto.

Because the South Dakota Constitution allows only five days for me to make decisions on more than 180 bills that were delivered during the last week of session, I may supplement this message with more information when the Legislature convenes on March 21, 2001.

Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Governor


March 16, 2001

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:


I returned Senate Bill 239 and VETOED the same. It is, "An Act to establish the regents scholarship program and provide for its funding." This expanded version supplements the initial veto message.

Senate Bill 239 should not become law because:

    1.    It is unconstitutional.

     2.    Public tax dollars should be used to support public institutions first.

     3.     It doesn't guarantee that students attending a private institution would receive the benefit of the scholarship.

1. The Proposed New Law Is Unconstitutional

Article VI, Section 3 of the South Dakota Constitution states:
     No money or property of the state shall be given or appropriated for the benefit of     any sectarian or religious society or institution.

Article VIII, Section 16 states:
     No appropriation of lands, money or other property or credits to aid any sectarian     school shall ever be made by the state, or any county or municipality within the state,     nor shall the state or any county or municipality within the state accept any grant,     conveyance, gift or bequest of lands, money or other property to be used for sectarian     purposes, and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed in any school or institution     aided or supported by the state.

Both of the constitutional mandates clearly state that tax dollars, state-owned property, and credits should not be "given or appropriated" to any sectarian or religious institution. This language is so strong that when Legislators merely wanted to loan textbooks to private schools, a constitutional amendment was required in 1986 to allow it. The special exemption for textbooks is in Article VIII, Section 20 and it reads:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3, Article VI and section 16, Article VIII,     the Legislature may authorize the loaning of nonsectarian textbooks to all children     of school age.

Clearly, if a constitutional amendment had to be done to create an exception for the mere loaning of textbooks, then it is clear that the state constitution does not allow this type of benefit for schools.

In addition, on file in the Secretary of State's office are the original oaths that we all signed when we became elected public servants. Those oaths begin with the words, "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.."

2. Public Tax Dollars Should Be Used To Support Public Institutions First


The taxpayers of South Dakota maintain six public universities and four technical institutes. Until they are fully funded to meet the needs of their students, we should give them all of the money available for post-secondary education.

The lobbying by the private colleges to get public tax dollars has been enormous. The private colleges know that every public tax dollar they can obtain from the public treasury is a dollar they will not need to extract from their supporters, their alumni, or their affiliated churches. Every public tax dollar that goes to a private institution also strengthens that private school and weakens the public universities in South Dakota that should have received the public funding.

The fastest way to destroy South Dakota's public universities is to override my veto of Senate Bill 239 and create this new "voucher" system for private colleges. They will never admit it, but there is no doubt that some people want to weaken and even destroy our public post- secondary efforts so more and more students are channeled into private schools.

We are already in fierce competition for our own students against Minnesota and Nebraska subsidy programs. Minnesota has a special tuition reduction program to attract South Dakota students. In Nebraska, one person has donated several hundred million dollars to fund scholarships for out-of-state students to attend the University of Nebraska. We cannot match the huge spending binges in Minnesota or Nebraska's $500 million, but we certainly should not make our South Dakota public universities any weaker by giving public post-secondary tax dollars to private institutions.

3. The Proposed New Law Doesn't Guarantee That Students Attending A Private         Institution Would Receive The Benefit of the Scholarship

Because the Board of Regents is not currently controlling the annual tuition increases at private institutions, and because private institutions currently use the practice of "discounting" whereby tuition is much higher than actual costs, a Regents Scholar attending a private institution will not receive the full monetary benefit of a Regents Scholarship.

At South Dakota's public universities, tuition plus appropriations from the Legislature cover the cost of instruction and university operations, and nothing more. However, many of South Dakota's private universities charge very high tuition to some and "discount" the tuition of other students.

For example, even if the real cost per student is $8,000, a private university's published tuition might be $16,000. For every student that pays the full $16,000, the private university can offer two other students a $12,000 tuition reduction or scholarship for each of them. The school covers its costs for three students ($24,000) by collecting $16,000 from one student and $4,000 from each of the other two students.

If we add public funding into this "discounting" scheme, the private universities will have even more money to use to attract South Dakota's best and brightest students to their campuses. State universities aren't allowed to use discounting as a recruiting tool. Tuition is uniform and state schools are not allowed to overcharge some students in order to use that excess money to enroll other students.


Because of the discounting practice, taxpayers' money would actually go to subsidize out-of- state students in the private schools.

I respectfully request that you concur with my action and vote "no" on the motion to override this veto.

Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Governor

     There being no objection, the Senate reverted to Order of Business No. 8.

MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS


     Sen. Everist moved that a committee of three on the part of the Senate be appointed to meet with a like committee on the part of the House to fix the time of adjournment sine die for the Seventy-sixth Legislative Session.

     Which motion prevailed and the President appointed Sens. Everist, Brown, and Hutmacher.

     Sen. Everist moved that a committee of three on the part of the Senate be appointed to meet with a like committee on the part of the House to inform the Governor that the Legislature has completed its labors and is ready to adjourn sine die and to ascertain if he has any further communications to make to the Legislature.

     Which motion prevailed and the President appointed as such committee Sens. Everist, Brown, and Hutmacher.

     Sen. Everist moved that the Senate do now recess until 10:30 a.m., which motion prevailed and at 9:30 a.m., the Senate recessed.

RECESS


     The Senate reconvened at 10:30 a.m., the President presiding.

COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS


March 5, 2001

Madam President and Members of the Senate:

    I have the honor to inform you that I have approved Senate Bills 44, 56, 57, 64, 87, 92,

114, 150, 160, 166, 173, 185, 218, 231, 234, and 254, and the same have been deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.

Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Governor

March 6, 2001

Madam President and Members of the Senate:

    I have the honor to inform you that I have approved Senate Bill 107, and the same has been deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.

Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Governor

March 8, 2001

Madam President and Members of the Senate:

    I have the honor to inform you that I have approved Senate Bills 14, 27, 52, 53, 58, 60, 98, 125, 144, 149, 165, 186, 204, 209, 223, 225, and 253, and the same have been deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.

Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Governor

March 9, 2001

Madam President and Members of the Senate:

    I have the honor to inform you that I have approved Senate Bills 153, 226, 229, and 245, and the same have been deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.

Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Governor



MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE



MADAM PRESIDENT:

    I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has appointed Reps. Eccarius, Napoli, and Burg as a committee of three on the part of the House to meet with a like committee on the part of the Senate to wait upon his Excellency, the Governor, to inform him that the Legislature has completed its labors, is ready to adjourn sine die, and to ascertain if he has any further communications to make to the Legislature.


Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

    I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has appointed Reps. Eccarius, Bill Peterson, and Olson as a committee of three on the part of the House to meet with a like committee on the part of the Senate pertaining to fixing the time of adjournment sine die for the Seventy-sixth Legislative Session.

Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

    I have the honor to transmit herewith HCR 1027 which has been adopted by the House and your concurrence is respectfully requested.

Respectfully,
Karen Gerdes, Chief Clerk

CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE VETOES AND RECOMMENDATIONS


     The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 175 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message found on page 828 of the Senate Journal as provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

     The question being "Shall SB 175 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 19, Nays 16, Excused 0, Absent 0

     Yeas:
Apa; de Hueck; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Duxbury; Greenfield; Hagen; Hutmacher; Koetzle; Koskan; McIntyre; Moore; Putnam; Reedy; Staggers; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Volesky


     Nays:
Albers; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Drake; Everist; Hainje; Ham; Kleven; Madden; McCracken; Munson; Olson (Ed); Vitter; Whiting

     So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members- elect, the President declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.

     The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 179 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message found on page 829 of the Senate Journal as provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

     The question being "Shall SB 179 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 22, Nays 13, Excused 0, Absent 0

     Yeas:
Albers; Apa; Daugaard; de Hueck; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Duxbury; Hagen; Hutmacher; Kleven; Koetzle; Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Olson (Ed); Reedy; Staggers; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Volesky; Whiting

     Nays:
Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Diedtrich (Elmer); Drake; Everist; Greenfield; Hainje; Ham; Koskan; Munson; Putnam; Vitter

     So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members- elect, the President declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.

     The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 212 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message found on page 831 of the Senate Journal as provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

    Sen. Brown moved the previous question.

    Which motion prevailed.

     The question being "Shall SB 212 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 21, Nays 14, Excused 0, Absent 0


     Yeas:
Albers; Apa; Daugaard; de Hueck; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Drake; Duxbury; Greenfield; Hagen; Hutmacher; Koetzle; McIntyre; Moore; Olson (Ed); Reedy; Staggers; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Volesky; Whiting

     Nays:
Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Diedtrich (Elmer); Everist; Hainje; Ham; Kleven; Koskan; Madden; McCracken; Munson; Putnam; Vitter

     So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members- elect, the President declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.

     Sen. Everist moved that the Senate do now recess until 1:45 p.m., which motion prevailed and at 12:05 p.m., the Senate recessed.

RECESS


     The Senate reconvened at 1:45 p.m., the President presiding.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE


MADAM PRESIDENT:

    I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has approved HB 1279 as recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form. The recommendation of the Governor is found on page 884 of the House Journal.

    We hereby request your favorable consideration in approving the recommendation of the Governor as to style and form on HB 1279.

Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

    I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has passed HB 1196 over the veto of the Governor. The veto message of the Governor is found on page 828 of the House Journal.

    We hereby request your favorable consideration in passing HB 1196, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding.

Respectfully,
Karen Gerdes, Chief Clerk



MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS


     HCR 1027:   A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION,   Observing the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Legislative Research Council.

     Was read the first time and the President waived the referral to committee.

     HCR 1027:   A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION,   Observing the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Legislative Research Council.

     Sen. Albers moved that HCR 1027 as found on page 892 of the House Journal be concurred in.

     The question being on Sen. Albers' motion that HCR 1027 be concurred in.

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 34, Nays 0, Excused 1, Absent 0

     Yeas:
Albers; Apa; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; de Hueck; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Drake; Duxbury; Everist; Greenfield; Hagen; Hainje; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Koetzle; Koskan; Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Munson; Olson (Ed); Reedy; Staggers; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Vitter; Volesky; Whiting

     Excused:
Putnam

     So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the motion carried and HCR 1027 was concurred in.

CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE VETOES AND RECOMMENDATIONS


     The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 228 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message found on page 833 of the Senate Journal as provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

     The question being "Shall SB 228 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 19, Nays 16, Excused 0, Absent 0


     Yeas:
Daugaard; de Hueck; Dennert; Duxbury; Greenfield; Hagen; Hainje; Hutmacher; Kleven; Koetzle; McIntyre; Moore; Olson (Ed); Reedy; Staggers; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Volesky; Whiting

     Nays:
Albers; Apa; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Drake; Everist; Ham; Koskan; Madden; McCracken; Munson; Putnam; Vitter

     So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members- elect, the President declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.


     The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 239 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message found on page 836 of the Senate Journal as provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

     The question being "Shall SB 239 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 22, Nays 13, Excused 0, Absent 0

     Yeas:
Albers; Daugaard; de Hueck; Dennert; Duxbury; Greenfield; Hagen; Ham; Hutmacher; Koetzle; Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Munson; Olson (Ed); Reedy; Staggers; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Volesky; Whiting

     Nays:
Apa; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Drake; Everist; Hainje; Kleven; Koskan; Putnam; Vitter

     So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members- elect, the President declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.

     The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form of HB 1279 as found on page 884 of the House Journal, as provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

     The question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form of HB 1279 be approved?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 26, Nays 9, Excused 0, Absent 0


     Yeas:
Albers; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Drake; Duxbury; Everist; Hagen; Hainje; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Madden; McCracken; Munson; Olson (Ed); Putnam; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Vitter; Volesky; Whiting

     Nays:
Apa; de Hueck; Greenfield; Koetzle; Koskan; McIntyre; Moore; Reedy; Staggers

     So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form approved.

     Sen. Everist moved that the Senate do now recess until 3:15 p.m., which motion prevailed and at 2:45 p.m., the Senate recessed.

RECESS


     The Senate reconvened at 3:15 p.m., the President presiding.

CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE VETOES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(continued)

     The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1196 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message found on page 828 of the House Journal as provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

     The question being "Shall HB 1196 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 29, Nays 5, Excused 1, Absent 0

     Yeas:
Albers; Apa; Bogue; Brosz; Daugaard; de Hueck; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Drake; Duxbury; Greenfield; Hagen; Ham; Hutmacher; Koetzle; Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Olson (Ed); Putnam; Reedy; Staggers; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Vitter; Volesky; Whiting

     Nays:
Brown (Arnold); Everist; Hainje; Kleven; Koskan

     Excused:
Munson


     So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members- elect, the President declared the bill passed, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding.

MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS


     Sen. Everist moved that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of introducing, giving first reading to, dispensing with referral to committee, and giving second reading to a bill relating to the transfer of property and equipment from Homestake Mining Company to the State of South Dakota.

     The question being on Sen. Everist's motion that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of introducing, giving first reading to, dispensing with referral to committee, and giving second reading to a bill relating to the transfer of property and equipment from Homestake Mining Company to the State of South Dakota.

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 33, Nays 2, Excused 0, Absent 0

     Yeas:
Albers; Apa; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Drake; Duxbury; Everist; Greenfield; Hagen; Hainje; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Koetzle; Koskan; Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Munson; Olson (Ed); Putnam; Reedy; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Vitter; Volesky; Whiting

     Nays:
de Hueck; Staggers

     So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members- elect, the President declared the motion carried.

FIRST READING OF SENATE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS


     SB 255   Introduced by:  Senators Everist and Hutmacher and Representatives Peterson (Bill) and Olson (Mel)

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to   allow for the transfer of properties and equipment from     the Homestake Mining Company to the State of South Dakota.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

     Section  1.  The Governor, pursuant to §  5-24-12, may accept, on behalf of the State of South Dakota, the transfer of any property or equipment from the Homestake Mining Company.


     Was read the first time and the President waived the referral to committee.

SECOND READING OF SENATE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

     SB 255:   FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to   allow for the transfer of properties and equipment from the Homestake Mining Company to the State of South Dakota.

     Was read the second time.

     The question being "Shall SB 255 pass?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 33, Nays 1, Excused 1, Absent 0

     Yeas:
Albers; Apa; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Drake; Duxbury; Everist; Greenfield; Hagen; Hainje; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Koetzle; Koskan; Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Munson; Olson (Ed); Putnam; Reedy; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Vitter; Volesky; Whiting

     Nays:
Staggers

     Excused:
de Hueck

     So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.

HONORED GUESTS


     Sen. Everist   introduced and escorted to the rostrum his Excellency, Governor William J. Janklow, who spoke briefly.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE


MADAM PRESIDENT:

    I have the honor to transmit herewith HB 1298 which has passed the House and your favorable consideration is respectfully requested.

Respectfully,
Karen Gerdes, Chief Clerk
     MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS


     Sen. Everist moved that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of giving first and second reading to HB 1298 and that the Senate meet as a Committee of the Whole to hear testimony from the Secretary of Agriculture, Larry Gabriel.

     The question being on Sen. Everist's motion that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of giving first and second reading to HB 1298 and that the Senate meet as a Committee of the Whole to hear testimony from the Secretary of Agriculture, Larry Gabriel.

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 30, Nays 2, Excused 3, Absent 0

     Yeas:
Albers; Apa; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; de Hueck; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Duxbury; Everist; Greenfield; Hagen; Hainje; Ham; Kleven; Koetzle; Koskan; Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Munson; Olson (Ed); Putnam; Reedy; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Vitter; Whiting

     Nays:
Drake; Staggers

     Excused:
Hutmacher; Moore; Volesky

     So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members- elect, the President declared the motion carried.

FIRST READING OF HOUSE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS


     HB 1298:   FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to   regulate the manufacture, labeling, storage, and distribution of certain ruminant livestock feeds and to declare an emergency.

     Was read the first time.

     Sen. Everist moved that the Senate do now recess until 5:05 p.m., which motion prevailed and at 4:50 p.m., the Senate recessed.

RECESS


     The Senate reconvened at 5:05 p.m., as a Committee of the Whole, Sen. Larry Diedrich presiding as Chair.

    Sen. Diedrich introduced the Secretary of Agriculture, Larry Gabriel, who spoke as a proponent to HB 1298.

    Sen. Drake spoke as an opponent to HB 1298.

    Sen. Symens moved that HB 1298 be delivered to the Senate with a do pass recommendation.

     The question being on Sen. Symens' motion that HB 1298 be delivered to the Senate with a do pass recommendation.

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 30, Nays 4, Excused 1, Absent 0

     Yeas:
Apa; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Duxbury; Everist; Greenfield; Hagen; Hainje; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Koetzle; Koskan; Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Olson (Ed); Putnam; Reedy; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Vitter; Volesky; Whiting

     Nays:
Albers; de Hueck; Drake; Staggers

     Excused:
Munson

     So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present, the Chair declared the motion carried.

    Sen. Diedrich declared the Committee of the Whole dissolved.

    President Hillard now presiding.

SECOND READING OF HOUSE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS


     HB 1298:   FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to   regulate the manufacture, labeling, storage, and distribution of certain ruminant livestock feeds and to declare an emergency.

     Was read the second time.

     The question being "Shall HB 1298 pass?"

     And the roll being called:



     Yeas 30, Nays 5, Excused 0, Absent 0

     Yeas:
Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Duxbury; Everist; Greenfield; Hagen; Hainje; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Koetzle; Koskan; Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Munson; Olson (Ed); Putnam; Reedy; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Vitter; Volesky; Whiting

     Nays:
Albers; Apa; de Hueck; Drake; Staggers

     So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members- elect, the President declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE


MADAM PRESIDENT:

    I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has adopted the report of the Joint-Select Committee for the purpose of informing his Excellency, the Governor, that the Legislature has completed its labors, is ready to adjourn sine die, and to ascertain if he has any further communications to make to the Legislature.

Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

    I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has adopted the report of the Joint-Select Committee for the purpose of fixing the time of adjournment sine die for the Seventy-sixth Legislative Session.

Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

    I have the honor to return herewith SB 255 which has passed the House without change.

Respectfully,
Karen Gerdes, Chief Clerk

MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS


     SCR 11   Introduced by:  Senators Hainje, Albers, Apa, Bogue, Brosz, Brown (Arnold), Daugaard, de Hueck, Dennert, Diedrich (Larry), Diedtrich (Elmer), Drake, Duxbury, Everist, Greenfield, Hagen, Ham, Hutmacher, Kleven, Koetzle, Koskan, Madden, McCracken, McIntyre, Moore, Munson, Olson (Ed), Putnam, Reedy, Staggers, Sutton (Dan), Symens, Vitter, Volesky, and Whiting and Representatives Peterson (Bill), Abdallah, Adelstein, Bartling, Begalka,

Bradford, Broderick, Brown (Jarvis), Brown (Richard), Burg, Clark, Davis, Derby, Duenwald, Duniphan, Eccarius, Elliott, Flowers, Frost, Fryslie, Garnos, Gillespie, Glenski, Hansen (Tom), Hanson (Gary), Hargens, Heineman, Hennies (Don), Hennies (Thomas), Holbeck, Hundstad, Hunhoff, Jaspers, Juhnke, Klaudt, Kloucek, Koistinen, Konold, Kooistra, Lange, Lintz, Madsen, McCaulley, McCoy, Michels, Monroe, Murschel, Nachtigal, Napoli, Nesselhuf, Olson (Mel), Pederson (Gordon), Peterson (Jim), Pitts, Pummel, Rhoden, Richter, Sebert, Sigdestad, Slaughter, Smidt, Solum, Sutton (Duane), Teupel, Van Etten, Van Gerpen, Van Norman, and Wick

         A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION,  Expressing the Legislature's condolences upon the death of Laska Schoenfelder.

     WHEREAS,  a distinguished public servant and South Dakotan, Laska Schoenfelder, passed away on March 21, 2001; and

     WHEREAS,  Laska served as a precinct and state committeewoman, Davison County Register of Deeds, and a state employee and was active in the American Legion Auxiliary, V.F.W. Auxiliary, Cenkota, Republican Women's Federation, Farm Bureau, Kiwanis, South Dakota Historical Society, and Pierre Players; and

     WHEREAS,  Laska was first elected to the Public Utilities Commission in 1988 and was re- elected in 1994 and 2000. She was an influential member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and an active member of the Mid-America Regulatory Commissioners. She also held the distinction of being only one of four state commission members on the Federal Communications Commission's Federal/State Joint Board on Universal Service; and

     WHEREAS,  Laska and her husband, Mike, are the parents of five children Julie, Joi, John, Jacki, and Joe; and

     WHEREAS,  Laska lived her life with great enthusiasm, compassion, and love for her family and friends and for serving her community and the citizens of South Dakota:

     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,  by the Senate of the Seventy-sixth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the House of Representatives concurring therein, that the Legislature hereby expresses its heartfelt condolences on the passing of Laska Schoenfelder and that Laska Schoenfelder be honored for her achievements and contributions to the State of South Dakota.

     Was read the first time and the President waived the referral to committee.

     SCR 11:   A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION,   Expressing the Legislature's condolences upon the death of Laska Schoenfelder.

    Was read the second time.

     Sen. Hainje moved that SCR 11 be adopted.



     The question being on Sen. Hainje's motion that SCR 11 be adopted.

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 34, Nays 0, Excused 1, Absent 0

     Yeas:
Albers; Apa; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; de Hueck; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Drake; Everist; Greenfield; Hagen; Hainje; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Koetzle; Koskan; Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Munson; Olson (Ed); Putnam; Reedy; Staggers; Sutton (Dan); Symens; Vitter; Volesky; Whiting

     Excused:
Duxbury

     So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the motion carried and SCR 11 was adopted.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES


MADAM PRESIDENT:

    The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the Office of Engrossing and Enrolling has carefully compared SB 255 and finds the same correctly enrolled.

Respectfully submitted,
Arnold M. Brown, Chair

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS OF JOINT-SELECT COMMITTEES


MADAM PRESIDENT:

    Your Joint-Select Committee appointed to wait upon his Excellency, the Governor, to inform him that the Legislature has completed its labors and is ready to adjourn sine die and to ascertain if he has any further communications to make to the Legislature, respectfully reports that it has performed the duty assigned to it and has been informed by his Excellency, the Governor, that he will not appear for the closing of the Seventy-sixth Legislative Session.

Respectfully submitted,    Respectfully submitted,
Scott Eccarius    Barbara Everist
William Napoli    Arnold Brown
Quinten Burg    Jim Hutmacher
House Committee    Senate Committee



     Sen. Everist moved that the report of the Joint-Select Committee relative to informing the Governor that the Legislature has completed its labors and is ready to adjourn sine die be adopted.

     Which motion prevailed.


Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

    Your Joint-Select Committee appointed to consider the matter of adjournment sine die of the Seventy-sixth Legislative Session respectfully reports that the Senate and House of Representatives adjourn sine die at the hour of 6:30 p.m., March 21, 2001.

Respectfully submitted,    Respectfully submitted,
Scott Eccarius    Barbara Everist
Bill Peterson    Arnold Brown
Mel Olson    Jim Hutmacher
House Committee    Senate Committee

     Sen. Everist moved that the report of the Joint-Select Committee relative to fixing the time of adjournment sine die of the Seventy-sixth Legislative Session be adopted.

     Which motion prevailed.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE


MADAM PRESIDENT:

    I have the honor to return herewith SCR 11 in which the House has concurred.

Respectfully,
Karen Gerdes, Chief Clerk

SIGNING OF BILLS


     The President publicly read the title to

     SB 255: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to  allow for the transfer of properties and equipment from the Homestake Mining Company to the State of South Dakota.

     HB 1298: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to  regulate the manufacture, labeling, storage, and distribution of certain ruminant livestock feeds and to declare an emergency.


     And signed the same in the presence of the Senate.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES


MADAM PRESIDENT

     The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that SB 255 was delivered to his Excellency, the Governor, for his approval at 6:20 p.m., March 21, 2001.

Respectfully submitted,
Arnold M. Brown, Chair

    The following closing prayer was offered by Pastor Jeff Porter:

    Almighty God, Lord of the Universe and Lord of our lives, we praise You for Your goodness in giving us what we need for faithful living and for giving these Senators the wisdom and courage needed to help make this state a better and more just place to live. Thank You for what has been accomplished, for the efforts of the support staff, the pages, and others who helped to make the process work.

    Where issues are unresolved, we ask for direction and a sense of timing; where there is unresolved conflict between people, we pray for reconciliation. Between now and when these legislators gather again, help them to listen to You and to the people they serve.

    We pray for the State of South Dakota and that we may grow in mercy, wisdom, and acts of kindness. In Your holy and precious name we aks these things. Amen.

     Sen. Everist moved that the Senate do now adjourn sine die, which motion prevailed and at 6:30 p.m the Senate adjourned.

Patricia Adam, Secretary