The prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Pastor Roger Easland, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by House page Kristin Strohbehn.

     Roll Call: All members present except Rep. Jensen who was excused.

     The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the Chief Clerk of the House has had under consideration the House 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.

March 6, 2001

The Honorable Scott Eccarius
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Speaker Eccarius and Members of the House:

I herewith return House Bill 1279 with the following recommendations as to STYLE and FORM.

House Bill 1279 is, An Act to revise certain provisions regarding the tobacco prevention and reduction program.

This bill is intended to move the functions of the Tobacco Prevention and Reduction Advisory Board to the Department of Human Services. Inadvertently, a reference to the "board" was left in the bill.

On the Senate engrossed version of the bill, page 1, line 12, the word "board" should be changed to "department".

I respectfully request you concur with my recommendation as to style and form.

The Honorable Scott Eccarius
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I herewith return House Bill 1073 and VETO the same.

House Bill 1073 is, "An Act to revise certain procedures related to livestock brands, proof of livestock ownership, and livestock ownership inspection." The bill deals with the issue of freeze branding livestock as well as requirements for brand inspection prior to slaughter.

My office has been in contact with the Brand Board. The bill was intended to identify species that needed to have brands registered. As passed, the bill does much more than was intended. House Bill 1073 includes sheep and buffalo under the mandatory branding scheme and mandatory brand inspections laws.

In SDCL 40-20-4, livestock brand inspection is required if livestock are leaving the brand inspection area. The use of the term "livestock" in this statute includes sheep and buffalo. In SDCL 40-20-26, livestock inspection is required at auction markets in brand inspection areas. This will also include sheep and buffalo. In SDCL 40-20-29, brand inspection is required if livestock are being slaughtered commercially. This also includes sheep and buffalo.

The bill will include brand inspection of sheep and buffalo, which was not debated by either house or addressed by the industry. This was not the intent of the sponsors. Nobody intended that sheep be branded and inspected. Brand Board members have admitted the error in conversations with Secretary of Agriculture Larry Gabriel and my staff.

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.

The Honorable Scott Eccarius
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I herewith return House Bill 1144 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to revise certain provisions relating to child custody."

1.     House Bill 1144 imposes hardships on people seeking new employment to better their lives and the lives of their children.
    The time frame of giving 60 days' notice before relocation could very easily prevent a person from being able to accept a new job or a promotion. Very few employers will patiently hold a new job or promotion open while this lengthy process is being completed. Another problem is that a parent could lose his or her current job if he or she is unable to relocate in a timely manner.

2.     House Bill 1144 will also cause many unintended consequences.

     "(HB 1144) gives the freedom and control to the non-custodial parent, and at the same time limits opportunities for job advancement or educational advancement and in other areas that might improve life for the custodial parent and children."

"This bill could just add more fighting to an already volatile divorce situation."

    "If this bill passes, once again I will most likely be presented with another lengthy court battle to keep my family together because my ex-husband is a very vindictive and controlling man.This bill, if signed, could potentially tear my family apart altogether. Please don't let that happen."

"What if I would happen to get offered a better job somewhere else and they needed me in two weeks? "

    "I am to put my life on hold to suit him.when he only lives two miles away and cannot take one day a week, one day a month or even one day a year to see (our daughter) or talk to her on the phone.."

"It looks like it is the perfect bill for bully spouses."

    "The bill also makes it harder for parents who are trying to escape an abusive partner. I feel the law already in effect is sufficient."

"The bill offers a vindictive noncustodial parent the opportunity to inflict more pain.this is a matter for divorce court, not legislation."

    "Proximity to both parents does not guarantee commitment to raising children. I am convinced that things get pretty messy when government starts interfering with family dynamics."

"House Bill 1144 will definitely contribute to potential hostility and a breakdown of my sister's and her ex-husband's parenting relationship."

    "this bill holds only the custodial parent accountable for relocating. I could lose custody of my children because I was forced to relocate for employment reasons. This bill gives the non-custodial parents and judges an unfair amount of rights and power over custodial parents."

3.     Some people are very dangerous, and they should not have access to the address of their former spouse and children.

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

The Honorable Scott Eccarius
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I herewith return House Bill 1218 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to prohibit directed suretyship."

This bill is a terrible deal for the taxpayers who pay hundreds of millions of dollars each year to construct the highways and public property of the state, counties and municipalities in South Dakota. It would allow them to be ripped off. There is a reason insurance companies are rated. Which one of us would purchase our personal insurance from a "C" rated company? None of us would if we knew the company was rated a "C." Why would we allow the public's mega- million dollar investments to be tied to "C" rated insurance companies in place of "A" rated insurance companies, foreign or domestic?

I 1.      Why would we think it is a good idea to allow a poor contractor, who is the low bidder and might be at great risk of going broke, to match up with a poor insurance company that is at great risk of not paying?

II 2.      This bill applies to all state, county, and municipal government construction projects in South Dakota and could force the taxpayers to pay for a building twice.

III 3.      The public is responsible for construction bills not paid on a public project. That is why state law requires a surety in the first place. If the contractor goes under, the surety steps in to pay the bills. If the surety goes under or fails to pay the bills, the state, county, or municipality is still liable.

The Honorable Scott Eccarius
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I returned House Bill 1218 and VETOED the same. It is, "An Act to prohibit directed suretyship." This expanded version supplements the initial veto message.

This bill is a terrible deal for the taxpayers that pay hundreds of millions of dollars each year to construct the highways and public property in this state. It would allow them to be ripped off. There is a reason insurance companies are rated. Which one of us would purchase our personal insurance from a "C" rated company rather than an "A" rated company? Why would we allow the public's mega-million dollar investments to be tied to a "C" rated insurance company in place of an "A" rated insurance company, foreign or domestic?

Is it a good idea to allow a poor contractor, who is the low bidder and might be at great risk of going broke, to match up with a poor insurance company that is at great risk of not paying? A "C" rated company is not as solvent as an "A" rated company and more likely to bond a weak contractor than an "A" rated company. The effect of House Bill 1218 is to favor financially weak contractors and financially weak insurance companies while exposing government entities and taxpayers to excessive risk. Should a government entity allow someone else to determine the government's liability? I do not think so; that just does not make sense.

This bill applies to all state, county, and municipal governments' construction projects in South Dakota and could force the taxpayers to pay for a building twice. An insurance company that issues a surety bond agrees to make good the default or debt of a contractor. Nevertheless, the government has primary responsibility to perform and pay all obligations due under the contract. For example: If a contractor is paid by the state or a local government and then files bankruptcy, the surety steps into the contractor's place to pay any debts. However, if the surety fails to pay the bill because of insolvency or fraud, the state or local government would end up paying the bills for the project again! The taxpayers would pay twice for the same project.

That is why insurance companies are rated and why government entities should be able to determine the surety, not the contractor.

House Bill 1218 opens the doors wide as far as who can be a surety, because the government entity can no longer deny any particular insurance company, surety company, or producer from issuing a policy to a contractor. The practical effect of this bill means an insurer or surety

company from anywhere in the world could issue a surety bond to a local contractor. A contractor faced with the opportunity of receiving a multi-million dollar contract could certainly take advantage of this bill to save money and still be bonded in a way authorized under this bill. The bill is intended to help contractors get bonded, but ultimately the bill will produce disastrous results for taxpayers.

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 have chosen to supplement that message with more information for the Legislature's consideration on March 21, 2001.

The Honorable Scott Eccarius
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:

I herewith return House Bill 1247 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to revise the requirements for volunteer firefighters to become eligible for worker's compensation and to update a reference used to determine impairment."

A late amendment to the bill was added on the Senate floor without debate. The intent was to make a minor update. On closer examination, this minor amendment has large consequences. The amendment changes current law by changing a reference to the June 1993, fourth edition (324 pages) of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, established by the American Medical Association and replacing that with a reference to the November 2000, fifth edition (626 pages).

This change will cause a substantial increase in worker's compensation rates. The cost to South Dakota businesses would be between $400,000 and $2.4 million.

That increase is not necessary.

It is for this reason that I must VETO House Bill 1247.

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

The Honorable Scott Eccarius
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I herewith return House Bill 1295 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to allow certain interstate shipments of wine."

1.     House Bill 1295 will encourage more underage drinking in South Dakota.
    Because this bill will legalize direct shipment of wine for the first time in South Dakota's history, it will allow much easier access to wine without face-to-face proof of age. Therefore, it will encourage more underage drinking in South Dakota. I know this is true because a minor who works in my office made a supervised purchase of wine on the Internet with another employee's credit card just to see if it could be done. The wine was delivered a few days later in an unmarked package to the state capitol mailroom and picked up by an inmate who brings the mail to my office every morning. At the time of delivery, no one asked anyone in the mailroom if the recipient was old enough to purchase alcohol. Nobody but the shipper, the minor, and the minor's supervisor knew what was in the package.

    If House Bill 1295 becomes law, more and more minors will learn about this very, very easy way to secure wine without having to show any proof of age. This new "virtually" no-risk method of securing alcohol will explode in usage by minors.

        2.      House Bill 1295 will be costly to taxpayers and eliminate protections against offensive wine labels.
            Under current law, wine brands must register with the state for two reasons. First, the brand label fees account for approximately $110,000 in taxes that will not have to be raised by taxes on the state's citizens. Second, the brand registering requirement enables the state to keep offensive labels out of South Dakota. Under House Bill 1295, South Dakota will lose tax revenues and the opportunity to refuse offensive labels.

        3.     The twelve case limit in House Bill 1295 is confusing.
            The bill states that “No person may receive more than twelve cases of wine . in any calendar year for personal use from another state under this Act.” Can a person receive more than twelve cases if the wine is not for personal use?

4.     House Bill 1295 violates the three-tier system that has served South Dakota well for many years.
    In the three-tier system, consumers buy from retailers. Retailers buy from wholesalers, and wholesalers buy from the alcohol beverage producers. This system allows for the orderly collection of taxes and effective enforcement of liquor laws. House Bill 1295 violates the current three-tier system by allowing the direct delivery of wine to an address. There is no way for the state to enforce the state's liquor laws, such as our underage drinking laws.

     Was read the first time and the Speaker waived the committee referral.

     Excused:
Jensen; Valandra

     Absent:
Duniphan

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

    There being no objection, the House reverted to Order of Business No. 4.

     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 66, Nays 0, Excused 2, Absent 2

     Yeas:
Abdallah; Adelstein; Bartling; Begalka; Broderick; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Burg; Clark; Davis; Derby; Duenwald; Duniphan; 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 (Bill); Peterson (Jim); Pitts; Pummel; Rhoden; Richter; Sebert; Sigdestad; Slaughter; Smidt; Solum; Sutton (Duane); Teupel; Van Etten; Van Gerpen; Wick; Speaker Eccarius

     Absent:
Bradford; Van Norman

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

     Yeas:
Abdallah; Adelstein; Bartling; Begalka; Bradford; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Burg; Clark; Davis; Derby; Elliott; Flowers; Fryslie; Garnos; Gillespie; Glenski; Hansen (Tom); Hanson (Gary); Hargens; Heineman; Hennies (Don); Hennies (Thomas); Holbeck; Hundstad; Hunhoff; Klaudt; Kloucek; Koistinen; Kooistra; Lange; Lintz; Madsen; McCoy; Michels; Murschel; Nachtigal; Napoli; Nesselhuf; Olson (Mel); Pederson (Gordon); Peterson (Jim); Pummel; Rhoden; Sebert; Sigdestad; Slaughter; Smidt; Sutton (Duane); Teupel; Valandra; Van Etten; Van Gerpen; Van Norman

     Nays:
Broderick; Duenwald; Duniphan; Frost; Jaspers; Juhnke; Konold; McCaulley; Monroe; Peterson (Bill); Pitts; Richter; Solum; Wick; Speaker Eccarius

     Excused:
Jensen

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

     Excused:
Jensen

     Absent:
Broderick; Jaspers; Valandra

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

     Excused:
Holbeck; Jensen

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

     Excused:
Jensen

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

    Section 2. That § 39-14-60 be amended to read as follows:

     39-14-60.   The secretary of agriculture may promulgate rules , pursuant to chapter 1-26, for commercial feeds and pet foods:

     Was read the first time and referred to the House Committee of the Whole.

    The following persons testified on HB 1298:
        Proponents:
            Rep. Lintz
            Rep. Jim Peterson

    I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has passed HB 1196, the Governor's veto notwithstanding.

produced and processed under these rigorous standards with food from other sources is a practice that undermines the credibility of our food system; and

     Was read the first time and the Speaker waived the committee referral.

     The question being on Rep. Bill Peterson's motion that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of giving first reading, dispensing with committee referral, and giving second reading and final consideration to SB 255.

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 66, Nays 2, Excused 1, Absent 1

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

     Nays:
Bradford; Van Norman

     Excused:
Jensen

     Absent:
Hundstad

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

    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

    I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has adopted the report of the Joint-Select Committee for the purpose of waiting 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 communications to make to the Legislature.

    I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has adopted the report of the Joint-Select Committee relative to fixing the time of adjournment sine die for the Seventy_sixth Legislative Session.

MR. SPEAKER:

    The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the Office of Engrossing and Enrolling has carefully compared HB 1298 and finds the same correctly enrolled.

     The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the House and Senate have, pursuant to the recommendation of the Governor as to corrections in style and form of HB 1279, approved the recommendation and that the Office of Enrolling and Engrossing has engrossed the changes and has returned the same to his Excellency, the Governor at 3:30 p.m., March 21, 2001.

     The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the House and Senate have, pursuant to the Governor's veto of HB 1196, overridden that veto and delivered the same to her Excellency, the Secretary of State, for filing at 5:30 p.m., March 21, 2001.

     The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that HB 1298 was delivered to his Excellency, the Governor, for his approval at 6:22 p.m., March 21, 2001.