(1) Unobligated Surplus in Part 1A $ 78,296,073;
(2) H63-Department of Education
(A) 4 Year Pre-Kindergarten Child Development Education Pilot Program 9,294,497;
(B) First Steps- 4 Year Pre-Kindergarten Child Development Education Pilot Program 7,858,576;
(C) School Transportation 29,553,931;
(D) School Buses 30,546,069;
(E) Governor’s School for Science & Math – Technology Replacement 64,042;
(F) School Libraries 1,000,000;
(G) Boys & Girls Clubs 1,300,000;
(H) EFA Reserve Fund 20,000,000;
(I) Save the Children Rural Literacy Project 500,000;
(J) Science South 750,000;
(3) H67-Educational Television Commission
(A) Education Satellite Services 1,400,000;
(B) Radio & Television Transmission 485,000;
(4) H79-Department of Archives & History
(A) Electronic Archives Development 218,000;
(B) Public Access Upgrades 40,000;
(C) National Historic Register Site – Randolph Cemetery 200,000;
(D) Quaker Cemetery 70,000;
(5) H87-State Library
(A) Darlington Old Carnegie Library 125,000;
(B) Johnsonville Library 550,000;
(6) H91-Arts Commission
(A) Grants – Education, Arts & Cultural Tourism 585,000;
(B) Newberry County Opera House 50,000;
(C) Weldon Auditorium 500,000;
(D) Town of Chesterfield/Old Courthouse Arts Renovation Center 125,000;
(E) Gaffney Arts & Cultural Center 400,000;
(6.1) (Grants – Education, Arts and Cultural Tourism) For the current fiscal year, the Arts Commission is prohibited from utilizing funds appropriated for Education, Arts, and Cultural Tourism grants for personal services.
(7) H95-State Museum
(A) Marketing 25,000;
(B) Acquisitions 25,000;
(C) Dr. Benjamin E. Mays Historic Site & Museum 200,000;
(D) York County Museum 500,000;
(E) Florence Museum 3,900,000;
(F) National Bean Market Museum of South Carolina 950,000;
(G) Fountain Inn Museum 100,000;
(H) Fountain Inn Civic Center Auditorium 100,000;
(7.1) (Florence Museum) Of the funds appropriated to the State Museum for the Florence Museum the locality shall match every state dollar with two local dollars.
(8) A05-House of Representatives
Technology Assessment 60,000;
(9) E16-State Treasurer
Tuition Prepayment Program – Elimination of Unfunded Liability 9,204,341;
(10) B04-Judicial Department
(A) Court Technology 1,550,000;
(B) Travel 1,000,000;
(C) Abbeville County Courthouse Renovation & Operational Costs 225,000;
(11) C05-Administrative Law Court
(A) Staff Attorneys – Startup Equipment 33,851;
(B) Business Associate – Startup Equipment 3,413;
(12) E20-Attorney General
(A) Internet Sexual Predator Prosecutors & Support Staff – Startup Equipment 255,000;
(B) Technology Enhancement Initiative – Computer Equipment 468,038;
(13) F03-Budget & Control Board
(A) SC Health Information Data Systems 10,000;
(B) Competitive Grants 3,000,000;
(C) Department of Transportation Procurement Study 250,000;
(D) Office of Local Government
(1) Westminster Town Hall Renovations 10,000;
(2) Third Army Water Line 450,000;
(3) City of Conway Storm Water Filtration 23,000;
(4) Liberty Industrial Development 200,000;
(5) Lake Marion Water Authority 100,000;
(6) Museum & Gallery at Heritage Green 100,000;
(14) F30-Employee Benefits
Other Post Employment Benefits Trust Fund 16,079,104;
(15) X22-Aid to Subdivisions – State Treasurer
Aid to Planning District 10,000;
(16) E28-Election Commission
(A) 2008 Statewide Primary/Runoff Elections 3,473,000;
(B) Operations 500,000;
(C) Ballot Security 400,000;
(17) SC Rural Infrastructure Authority – Grants & Loan Program 10,000;
(18) H03-Commission on Higher Education
(A) Greenville Technical College 1,123,000;
(B) University Center of Greenville 500,000;
(C) Enhance Agency Technology 130,000;
(D) GEAR UP 75,000;
(E) Electronic Library 2,000,000;
(F) SC Manufacturing Extension Partnership 1,200,000;
(G) Task Force on Higher Education Study Committee 150,000;
(H) National Guard Scholarship Program 1,300,000;
(I) SC Community Enterprise Center 200,000;
(19) H12-Clemson University
(A) Comset 600,000;
(B) Light Rail 1,500,000;
(C) Deferred Maintenance 250,000;
(20) H18-Francis Marion University
(A) Center for the Performing Arts 4,000,000;
(B) I-95 Corridor Study 250,000;
(21) H21-Lander University
Greenwood-Lander Performing Arts Outreach Program 20,000;
(22) H24-South Carolina State University
(A) Transportation Center 410,635;
(B) Deferred Maintenance 1,500,000;
(C) SC Alliance for Minority Participation 200,000;
(D) I-95 Corridor Study 250,000;
(E) Obesity Awareness & Prevention Initiative 200,000;
(F) Bridge Program 250,000;
(23) H27-University of South Carolina – Columbia
(A) One Carolina 1,500,000;
(B) SC LightRail 1,500,000;
(C) SC Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology – Equipment 54,375;
(D) SC Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology – Building Renovation 300,000;
(E) National Hydrogen Association Convention – EngenuitySC 100,000;
(F) Gibbs Green Renovation 250,000;
(24) H37-University of South Carolina – Lancaster
Repairs and Renovation 800,000;
(25) H47-Winthrop University
(A) Lake Wylie Small Business Development Center 115,000;
(B) Deferred Maintenance/Property Acquisition 1,200,000;
(26) H51-Medical University of South Carolina
(A) SC LightRail 1,500,000;
(B) Reid House – Health Education & Disease Prevention Initiative 250,000;
(C) Charleston Breast Center – Equipment 450,000;
(D) Hollings Cancer Center 500,000;
(27) H59-State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education
(A) Allied Health Initiative 10,000,000;
(B) Center for Accelerated Technology 1,200,000;
(C) Central Carolina Technical College – Nursing Program 2,000,000;
(D) Greenville Tech Northwest Campus Heritage Hall 200,000;
(E) Midlands Tech-Center of Excellence for Technology 1,000,000;
(F) Williamsburg Technical College – Trades Program 300,000;
(G) York Technical College – Chester Technology 500,000;
(H) Piedmont Pottery Degree Program 150,000;
(I) Technical College of the Lowcountry – Nursing Program 250,000;
(J) Orangeburg Technical College – Trucking Program 200,000;
(28) P12-Forestry Commission
Oconee County Fire Fighting Equipment 150,000;
(29) P16-Department of Agriculture
(A) Marketing 1,000,000;
(B) Bio Diesel & Ethanol Testing 250,000;
(C) Agri-Tourism and Economic Development 2,000,000;
(D) Colleton Farmers Market Revitalization Project 150,000;
(30) P20-Clemson-PSA
(A) Agribusiness, Biotech, Genetics 3,600,000;
(B) Spartanburg Humane Society 100,000;
(31) P24-Department of Natural Resources
(A) Law Enforcement 730,400;
(B) Marine Infrastructure 5,000,000;
(C) Law Enforcement Equipment 500,000;
(D) Freshwater Fish Hatchery Maintenance 2,165,000;
(E) Upgrade VHF Radio System 5,000,000;
(F) Information Technology 2,500,000;
(G) Historic Houses & Structures 2,200,000;
(H) Recruitment and Retention of Staff 500,000;
(I) Removal of Abandoned River Shacks 100,000;
(J) Lynches River Environmental Discovery Center 120,129;
(K) Erosion and Sediment Control at Congaree Pointe 475,000;
(L) Keeper of the Wild 75,000;
(M) Lake Wylie Visitor Center 235,000;
(32) P28-Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism
(A) Advertising-Statewide 10,000,000;
(B) Advertising – Destination Specific 5,000,000;
(C) Product Development 5,000,000;
(D) State Parks Asbestos Abatement 1,000,000;
(E) Parks and Recreation Development Fund (PARD) 2,400,000;
(F) Manufacturing Alliance “Made in South Carolina” 750,000;
(G) Competitive Grants 3,000,000;
(H) Anderson County Parks & Recreation 800,000;
(I) Camp Croft State Park – Bridge 50,000;
(J) Mount Pleasant Waterfront Park 50,000;
(K) Dorchester County Youth, Senior, and Tourism 160,000;
(L) Historic Mineral Springs Park 165,000;
(M) Promotion for Recreation Facilities in Charleston County 125,000;
(N) Historic Duncan Park 60,000;
(O) Clearwater Village 165,000;
(P) Oakley Park 150,000;
(Q) Atlantic Beach Marketing, Tourism, and Planning 225,000;
(R) Murrell’s Inlet Project 235,000;
(S) Marion County Tourism & Education Resource Center 165,000;
(T) Lee County Park 150,000;
(U) Darlington Byerly Park 160,000;
(V) Fingerville Community Park – Spartanburg 80,000;
(W) Little League Sports Complex on Bryant Road 70,000;
(X) Lake Ashwood Project 65,000;
(Y) Richland County Recreation Commission – Friarsgate Park 25,000;
(Z) Horry County Community Parks, Recreation, and Tourism 300,000;

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)

click here to see the full i-9 instructions

ZAHN: Thank you. Are you, through this bill, trying to scare women away from having abortions?

BRYANT: No, we’re not trying to scare women about having an abortion, but we just want to show her all the facts, show her how the baby is developed in the womb with 10 fingers and 10 toes. And when she makes this decision — and this doesn’t do anything with that choice, but it does add information and makes the choice more informed. And that’s the goal of the legislation.

ZAHN: But you do feel that looking at this ultrasound makes a difference. And I know some people dispute the statistics that you have used to try to get this bill through, but you think the more women who look at these ultrasounds, the more they’ll be discouraged to go through with an abortion.

BRYANT: Well, we feel that the right choice is to carry the child. That’s our opinion. And we’ve seen 80, 85 percent of women who do view an ultrasound of the baby in their womb do, most of the time, indeed, decide to carry that child and deliver the child. So, we believe that it adds honor, adds respect to the life in the womb.

ZAHN: Senator, I want to put up on the screen now something that a well-known bioethicist said about this proposed law. “We don’t require people who are undergoing any surgical procedure to view models of what their heart looks like or what their stomach looks like before they’re operated on.”

So his question, essentially, is why should abortion be any different?

BRYANT: Well, this isn’t a heart or it’s not a lung. This is another living human being that has rights and should be honored. So, I believe that it’s a different situation here, because we’re dealing with a baby.

These ultrasounds show a beating heart with four chambers. It shows a developed spinal cord where you can see different vertebrae. It’s way more developed than one would imagine. It’s certainly not a blob of tissue or another organ of the body.

ZAHN: Planned Parenthood, as you know, is also opposed to this bill. And I also want to share that criticism with you tonight.

BRYANT: Yes.

ZAHN: They write, “Women are intelligent and thoughtful human beings who would not go forward if they did not think this was in their best interest. This bill is nothing more than politically driven. It’s unnecessary and an attempt to restrict abortion by scaring and intimidating women.”

Are you trying to suggest that women can’t make informed decisions without looking at this ultrasound?

BRYANT: I believe that the decision would definitely be informed if they do see this ultrasound, and I do believe there are some involved in this debate that simply are disappointed when someone chooses to carry the child. That’s what it appears, anyway.

ZAHN: What really upsets people, though, is why some people think it’s OK to even insist that women who have been raped by a family member or by a stranger should also be subjected to looking at this ultrasound. Is that fair?

BRYANT: Well, that is — well, that’s — that was proposed in the House. And that amendment was tabled. I believe it will probably be proposed again in the Senate, even though I won’t support that amendment.

It would still be — the bill would still be something I could support if that’s in there. And, you know, we’ll just have to take it when it comes.

But the thing is, we still have a life, regardless of circumstances, a developed baby. And I believe that baby should be part of that decision process that the patient undergoes.
ZAHN: Senator Kevin Bryant, got to leave it there. Thanks for coming in tonight.

BRYANT: OK. Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: Our pleasure.

As the Senate takes up H. 3355 next week. Your thoughts, questions, & comments are certainly welcome.

The report runs nearly 100 pages and reveals a lack of internal controls, unclear and unwritten policy, suspicious accounting activity and questionable compliance with federal law. One of the most disturbing findings was testimony that revealed that because the Transportation Department has misspent and mismanaged, the department may not be able to meet its payroll by this summer.

Our current commissioner-director model of management means the director is accountable only to a combined majority of parochial commissioners. These commissioners in turn have generally cared more about scoring road projects for their district than they have about responsibly overseeing a crucial state agency. At its best, our system has functioned piecemeal; at its worst, it has materialized in a patchwork system of roads built because of political pressure rather than public need.

To be sure, this existing management system is a creature of the Legislature. It is our responsibility to fix it, and the time for reform is now.

My Transportation subcommittee, which has been meeting since November, developed legislation that brings meaningful, commonsense reform to the way we plan and build roads. Our reform proposal creates a system of checks and balances, separating the planning of roads and the building and maintaining of roads. The new Board of Transportation would better represent a cross-section of the state, ensuring adequate representation from rural and urban areas as well as from other areas based on maintenance needs. The new board would prioritize projects and would approve the state’s Transportation Improvement Plan and mass transit plan. Importantly, our reform plan would require the board to approve financial planning for large projects, its members would have to discharge duties in good faith with due care, and they would be barred from entering into conflict-of-interest transactions. The plan establishes measurable criteria and a system of ranking to ensure our roads are built where they are needed most.

Finally, the reform package provides that the governor would appoint a new transportation secretary. The secretary would be accountable to the governor, and the governor is answerable to the people of South Carolina.

Unfortunately, the road to true reform took a U-turn in the Senate on Thursday when our sensible legislation was shoved aside in favor of a flawed proposal that would actually make the department less accountable and needlessly inject more politics into the road building process. This flawed proposal would further politicize our already-polarized decision-making process by placing more day-to-day control in the hands of Columbia politicians, rather than those who know how to build and maintain roads.

I am convinced that many of my Senate colleagues are unaware of just how ill-conceived this flawed proposal may be. The Transportation Department’s root problem is the parochial nature of the commission system, which pits one commissioner against another at the expense of sound public policy.

Our current system is dysfunctional. I know it; other legislators know it; you know it. And still, somehow, there is resistance. Despite the overwhelmingly favorable vote to pass the real reform proposal out of the Transportation Committee and on to the floor, the boys of the good ol’ boy system are pushing back.

As floor debate began last week, it was learned that a new Transportation Commission member has been seated on the existing commission. This despite the fact that his “election” was held without the knowledge of all the legislators legally entitled to cast a vote on behalf of their constituents. Worse still, this vote apparently was held without public notice, again in violation of state law. It now appears other members of the existing Transportation Commission were seated in similar fashion.

The time for reform is now. Millions of dollars have been wasted, accountability is out the window, and our roads continue to crumble. Call your legislators and urge them to act. Tell them they should support real reform. Tell them to support the original reform proposal that makes DOT work for you instead of the politicians.