the immigration debate will revolve around a document called an “i9” which, in my opinion, is a worthless document. If this is going to be the standard, we may as well as accept a BiLo Bonus card for proper documents for legal citizenship. If you meet one of the requirements below, then you qualify for an i9.

LISTS OF ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTS
LIST A Documents that Establish Both Identity and Employment Eligibility
1. U.S. Passport (unexpired or expired)
2. Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (Form N-560 or N-561)
3. Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550 or N-570)
4. Unexpired foreign passport, with I-551 stamp or attached Form I-94 indicating unexpired employment authorization
5. Permanent Resident Card or Alien Registration Receipt Card with photograph (Form I-151 or I-551)
6. Unexpired Temporary Resident Card (Form I-688)
7. Unexpired Employment Authorization Card (Form I-688A)
8. Unexpired Reentry Permit (Form I-327)
9. Unexpired Refugee Travel Document (Form 1-571)
10. Unexpired Employment Authorization Document issued by DHS that contains a photograph (Form I-688B)
OR LIST B Documents that Establish Identity
1. Driver’s license or ID card issued by a state or outlying possession of the United States provided it contains a photograph or information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color and address
2. ID card issued by federal, state or local government agencies or entities, provided it contains a photograph or information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color and address
3. School ID card with a photograph
4. Voter’s registration card
5. U.S. Military card or draft record
6. Military dependent’s ID card
7. U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Card
8. Native American tribal document
9. Driver’s license issued by a Canadian government authority
For persons under age 18 who are unable to present a document listed above:
10. School record or report card
11. Clinic, doctor or hospital record
12. Day-care or nursery school record
AND LIST C Documents that Establish Employment Eligibility
1. U.S. social security card issued by the Social Security Administration (other than a card stating it is not valid for employment)
2. Certification of Birth Abroad issued by the Department of State (Form FS-545 or Form DS-1350)
3. Original or certified copy of a birth certificate issued by a state, county, municipal authority or outlying possession of the United States bearing an official seal
4. Native American tribal document
5. U.S. Citizen ID Card (Form I-197)
6. ID Card for use of Resident Citizen in the United States (Form I-179)
7. Unexpired employment authorization document issued by DHS (other than those listed under List A)

We’ve heard some interesting testimony on S. 860, a bill concerning fire sprinkler systems. A tax credit could apply to new construction and existing construction that choose to retrofit. Several members of the fire protection community were present underscoring the need for sprinkler systems simply because they save lives (citizens and firemen) and the loss of property is reduced. The most moving testimony came from family members that have experienced the death of loved ones to fires. We heard from courageous widows of firemen who lost their husbands in the line of duty. We witnessed parents of the students that were killed in the beach house fire this summer. The subcommittee process is very dependent on public testimony, but I was inspired that these bold citizens would come forth and revisit their loss for the benefit of decisions made by their government.

There are several proposals on the table with S 860. We could mandate sprinklers in all new construction from residential to commercial. We could mandate sprinkler installation in all dwellings whether new or existing. Also, there is the idea of no mandates, but provide tax incentives for the public to decide for themselves what kind of protection they want for their property.

S. 860 contains language to prevent utilities from charging exorbitant rates for tap-on fees for those installing these systems. This bill contains mandates to insurance companies to offer discounts to those that have sprinkler protection.
Present was a representative from the department of insurance telling us that some insurance companies are already offering incentives.

As you can see, this is one of those bills that will be difficult to deal with. Ya’ll know I have much more faith in market driven solutions than I do with government solutions, so let the debate begin.

I welcome your thoughts, as this is a gut wrenching issue.

Evidently, I’ve made a respectable impression over at the other brooks brothers and their sister’s blog. They seem to have liked the opposition to the “gag-bill” S. 714 last week.I’m not making this up. Here’s a quote from the post:

UPDATE: If you haven’t really kept up with this debate, Senator Kevin Bryant is like Clark Kent. The only difference besides the accent is that instead of changing from mild-mannered reporter in to Superman, he transforms from mild-mannered pharmacist in to constitutional lawyer. Seriously, if you haven’t really payed attention to this debate, Senator Bryant was a real leader in challenging the constitutionality of S.714 (see HERE and HERE). full post

s. 833 which prohibits the tethering (fastening, chaining, or restraining a dog to a stationary object) for more than 3 hours a day (or 6 hours a day on a trolley system). The bill also authorizes local governments to vary these regulations. We must be responsible stewards over God’s wonderful creation. Hunting, fishing, and taking animals for food are permissible, but mutilation and torture is unquestionably wrong. I will support just sentencing for crimes involving dog fights, hog dog rodeo, cockfighting and similar blood sports.

My daughter has a bichon frise (Sugar on the left) that is attached to a cable in our front yard a few times a day for potty breaks. Believe me Sugar gets better treatment than most children. That dog is spoiled rotten. Sugar sleeps in the bed with her! I’m not convinced that this legislation will affect many animals receiving good care or will not affect animals receiving bad care while not tethered.

I understand the intentions of the legislation: to crack down on animal cruelty, which I wholeheartedly support. But the specifics of this bill bring up many questions. How is it enforced? Do we provide law enforcement officers with measuring tapes and stop watches? Is the 3 hours a day cumulative measure? Although we currently have animal cruelty penalties in place, this bill will cause us to revisit these statutes. It may be a better approach to leave the specifics up to the law enforcement and courts, but maybe we should put these definitions in the statutes. I’d love your thoughts on this one.

I’m excited to know that the Public Service Commission unanimously denied the rate increase application by the Utilities Soviets of South Carolina. So if you live on these streets, at least your escalated rates won’t go up for now: Acorn Drive, Altamont Court, Arcadia Drive, Bamboo Drive, Bayshore Lane, Brown Road, Bryson Road, Clearview Drive, Club Drive Drive, Crestwood Drive, Cretewood, Driftwood Drive, Edgewater Drive, June Way, Kings Court, Lakewood Drive, Marty Court, Meeting Street, Mountain View Place, Oakwood Estates, Old Shoals Drive, Olivarri Drive, Penniger Drive, Penniger Drive, Pine Top Circle, Red Oak Drive, Shannon Drive, Town Creek Trail, Twin Lakes Circle, Twin lakes Court, Twin Lakes Drive, Twin Lakes Drive, Wallwood Drive, Walnut Way, Wellwood Drive, Whisper Lane, Wilderness Lane, Wilson Road, Windwood Drive, Woodlake Road, Woodoak Drive, Yates Circle

read the full report here

Below is the original post on the issue:

On Wednesday night, we had a public hearing for a water rate increase for a few hundred of my constituents. My remarks obviously irritated one of the high dollar attorneys for the utilities company. She insisted my statement contained unsubstantiated claims. I guess that’s what they pay these high-class lawyers to do. Here’s the letter I read to the PSC:
November 7, 2007

G. O’Neal Hamilton, Chairman
South Carolina of Public Service Commission
101 Executive Center Dr., Suite 100
Columbia, SC 29210

Re: Docket 2007-286-WS

Dear Public Service Commissioners:

Thank you very much for having a public hearing in Anderson concerning the rate increase proposal by the Utilities Services of South Carolina. I have a number of constituents with documents verifying less than average water pressure, low quality customer service and water quality issues.

There is also a comparison of neighboring water companies charging rates already less than those of the USSC. I am sure the USSC will give you several reasons to justify these rate increases. For whatever these reasons may be, I would think the neighboring water companies have similar circumstances yet the neighboring customers seem to get fairer treatment. Simply put, these customers should not be subject to funding the mismanagement practices of USSC. It is not their problem. I would like to encourage the members of the Public Services Commission to take great efforts to examine the issues raised by my constituents.

I am a retail pharmacist. In my profession, an unsatisfied customer can simply choose to shop at a different drug store in town. Utilities customers do not have an option, therefore we ask you, the Public Service Commission, to intervene and protect these working families. They simply cannot afford an unfair price increase for an essential need such as water.

With warmest personal regards, I remain

Respectfully,

Kevin L. Bryant
South Carolina Senate District 3