Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 11:30 A.M.

Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:

We thank You, Heavenly Father, for Your watchful care that has been ours while absent from this place. And as You kept Abraham and Sarah by Your protecting hand and as You led the children of Israel through the midst of the Sea, we invoke in like manner Your ever abiding protection and guidance upon us. Grant us Your wisdom as we set our minds on the duties that lie ahead.

And as we pray, we remember with gratitude the life of our colleague, the late Bill Cork: his happy and cheerful disposition, spreading goodwill along the way. O God of all comfort, continue Your abundant presence especially upon those who loved Bill most, undergirding them in the sure knowledge of Your unfailing love and upholding them in Your unlimited strength.

Hear us, O Lord, in this our humble prayer. Amen.

Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.

After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

The following was received.

June 1, 1980
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk of the S.C.         (Doc. No. 1039)

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. McKinney:

The Department of Health and Environmental Control is hereby withdrawing R. 61-68, Water Classifications and Standards and R. 61-69, Classified Waters. These regulations have been referred to Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

Received as information.

The following were received.

June 1, 1989
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk of the S.C.         (Doc. No. 1067)

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs McKinney:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on June 1, regulations concerning Air Pollution Control from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

June 1, 1989
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk of the S.C.         (Doc. No. 1147)

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. McKinney:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on June 1, 1989 regulations concerning Hunt Units and Wildlife Management Area Regulations from the South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

June 1, 1989
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk of the S.C.         (Doc. No. 1066)

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. McKinney:

Pursuant to Act 178 of 1977, I have received on June 1, 1989 regulations concerning Certification of Operators of X-Ray Equipment from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

June 7, 1989
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk of the S.C.         (Doc. No. 1149)

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. McKinney:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on June 7, 1989 regulations concerning Surplus Property Disposal Procedures from the State Budget and Control Board.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

June 9, 1989
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk of the S.C.         (Doc. No. 1146)

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. McKinney:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on June 9, 1989 regulations concerning Merger Procedures for State Credit Unions from the State Board of Financial Institutions.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

June 9, 1989
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk of the S.C.         (Doc. No. 1145)

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. McKinney:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on June 9, 1989 regulations concerning Limitations and Restrictions on Real Estate Mortgages from the State Board of Financial Institutions.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

Received as information.

Rep. HUFF moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn in memory of our beloved colleague, Rep. BILL CORK, which was agreed to.

Due to a printing error, my statement regarding H. 3695 was incorrect. I wish the record to reflect that had I voted, I would have voted against the Bill.

Rep. J. LOCKEMY

The following was received.

June 12, 1989
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker, S. C. House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Speaker:

It has been indeed a great honor to have served in the South Carolina General Assembly for the past seven years. However, due to my election on May 3, 1989, as a Circuit Judge At-Large, I can no longer serve as a member of the State Legislature.

Therefore, I hereby resign my seat as a member of the House of representatives, District #55. This resignation is to be effective as of 5:00 P.M., June 12, 1989.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,
JAMES E. LOCKEMY

Received as information.

The following was received.

June 2, 1989
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk of the S.C.

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. McKinney:

This is to advise you that at a meeting of the House Rules Committee on June 1, 1989, the following officers were elected:

Rep. DOUGLAS E. McTEER, JR., Chairman

Rep. JAMES W. JOHNSON, 1st Vice-Chairman

Sincerely,
Ruth D. Muldrow
Executive Secretary

Received as information.

The following was received.

June 8, 1989

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I have forwarded today to secretary of State John T. Campbell without my signature H. 3695, R-227.

As I deliberated what to do over the weekend, I weighed two options: either let it become law without my signature or veto the Bill. I never seriously considered signing it into law because that action would signify my endorsement of the claims made by the Bill's backers: namely that it is a true reform which will bring about long-term rate reductions.

It is not true reform because it does nothing to address the root causes of high insurance rates. It will not cut rates for good drivers long-term. The best that can be said is that some drivers will realize a modest, temporary rate reduction, most of which will be eaten up by the backlog of pending rate increases.

The supporters of this Bill claim it will save good drivers up to $100. I believe it won't. These legislators and their special interest allies call this Bill substantive reform. I believe it isn't. For the sake of our good drivers, I hope they are right. Nevertheless, they won and we lost. They got what they wanted. Now the Bill's supporters deserve a chance to see if their claims will come true. If they do not, as I believe is likely, the newly-intensified concern about high rates and unfair laws will fuel another drive for true reform and real rate reductions.

In addition, I will not veto the Bill because it does contain a number of provisions which I recommended, including cracking down on uninsured motorists; increasing our class plan which leads to more equitable rates; increasing the ability of insurance companies to offer discounts; making insurance fraud a felony; and decreasing the amount of business going into the Reinsurance Facility.

While many of the provisions in the Bill are sound, they still do not get at the root causes of high rates. The real tragedy in all of this is that the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee and I developed substantive reform which would have slashed rates for good drivers by about $160 a year. And because it attacked the basic causes of our high insurance rates, it would have given our Insurance Commissioner the tools to turn down or reduce future rate hikes.

I commend people on the Conference Committee such as Senator Saleeby and Representative Brown for doing the best they could with what they had to work with. Unfortunately, the public's demand for substantive reform leading to lower rates has yet to be fulfilled.

Yours Sincerely,

Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor

Received as information.

The question of a quorum was raised.

A quorum was later present.

The following was received.

June 6, 1989

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4045, R. 248, an Act:
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-925 SO AS TO CREATE THE SOUTH CAROLINA FUTURE FARMERS OF AMERICA CAMP WILDLIFE SANCTUARY IN THE LITTLE RIVER NECK SECTION OF HORRY COUNTY AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office dated June 6, 1989, which states in concluding:

". . . H. 4045, R-248 of 1989 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to H. 4045, R-248 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7.

"In addition, Article III, Section 34 (VI) of the State Constitution prohibits the adoption of local or special laws for the protection of game.

"Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4045, R-248 would be of doubtful constitutionality."

Yours Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor

June 6, 1989
Mark R. Elam
Senior Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 11369
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mr. Elam:

By your letter of June 5, 1989, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of H. 4045, R-248, an act creating the South Carolina Future Farmers of America Camp Wildlife Sanctuary in Horry County. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality.

In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.

The act bearing ratification number 248 would add Section 50-11-925 to the South Carolina Code of Laws (1976, as amended), to create the Future Farmers of America Camp Wildlife Sanctuary in the Little River Neck section of Horry County. Thus, H. 4045, R-248 of 1989 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to H. 4045, R248 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974).

In addition, Article III, Section 34 (VI) of the State Constitution prohibits the adoption of local or special laws for the protection of game. This act creates a sanctuary in the described area of Horry County "for the protection of game, birds, and other animals." Thus, the act appears to be violative of Article III, Section 34 (VI) of the State Constitution.

Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4045, R-248 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.

Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Robert D. Cook
Executive Assistant for Opinions

The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Barfield               Corbett                Keegan

Those who voted in the negative are:

So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The following was received.

June 6, 1989

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4107, R. 262, an Act:
TO AMEND ACT 67 OF 1965, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SOUTH GREENVILLE AREA FIRE DISTRICT IN GREENVILLE COUNTY, SO AS TO RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT OF THE FIRE DISTRICT.

This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office dated June 6, 1989 which states in concluding:

". . . H. 4107, R-262 of 1989 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to H. 4107, R-262 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7.

"Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4107, R-262 would be of doubtful constitutionality."

Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor

June 6, 1989
Mark R. Elam
Senior Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 11369
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mr. Elam:

By your letter of June 5, 1989, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of H. 4107, R-262, an act pertaining to the South Greenville Area Fire District in Greenville County. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality.

In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.

The act bearing ratification number 262 amends Act No. 67 of 1965 relative to the South Greenville Area Fire District in Greenville County, to raise the debt limit of the District to an amount not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00). A review of Act No. 67 of 1965 reveals that the District is located within Greenville County. Only a portion of Greenville County is affected by this act. Thus, H. 4107, R-262 of 1989 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to H. 4107, R-262 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974).

Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4107, R-262 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.

Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Robert D. Cook
Executive Assistant for Opinions

The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Baker                  Fant
Manly                  Wilkins

Those who voted in the negative are:

So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The following was received.

June 6, 1989

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4088, R-277, an Act:
TO AMEND ACT 784 OF 1964, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE LUGOFF WATER DISTRICT OF KERSHAW COUNTY, SO AS TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING THE BOARD MEMBERS FROM APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR TO ELECTION BY THE USERS OF THE DISTRICT.

This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office dated June 6, 1989, which states in concluding:

". . . H. 4088, R-277 of 1989 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to H. 4088, R-277 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7.

"Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4088, R-277 would be of doubtful constitutionality."

Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor

June 6, 1989
Mark R. Elam
Senior Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 11369
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mr. Elam:

By your letter of June 5, 1989, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of H. 4088, R-277, an act amending Act No. 784 of 1964 relative to the Lugoff Water District in Kershaw County. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality.

In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.

The act bearing ratification number 277 amends Act No. 784 of 1964 and changes the method of selection of the governing body of the Lugoff Water District from appointment by the Governor to election by the users of the District. A review of Act No. 784 of 1964 reveals that the District is located within Kershaw County. Only a portion of Kershaw County is apparently affected by this Act. Thus, H. 4088, R-277 of 1989 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to H. 4088, R-277 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974).

Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4088, R-277 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.

Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Robert D. Cook
Executive Assistant for Opinions

The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Baxley                 Sheheen

Those who voted in the negative are:

So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Rep. J. ROGERS, with unanimous consent, made a statement relative to H. 3695, the Automobile Insurance Reform Act.

On motion of Rep. MAPPUS, with unanimous consent, the remarks of Rep. J. ROGERS were ordered printed in the Journal as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, fellow members...Please let me have your attention for a moment for a few brief words on an issue that affects all of us. During the past two weeks, I watched with dismay the growing name calling and innuendo that has accompanied the enactment of this year's Automobile Insurance Reform Act. The in-fighting has served no purpose other than to further confuse a public that is already confused about the provisions of this Bill, and to further alienate us, each from the other, over an issue that we all realize is as complex as any we must deal with in these chambers. Before engaging in any more finger pointing, let's put a few things in perspective. First, when we began this session six months ago, we all shared a common goal, and that is, revising an insurance system that would put less of a burden on the state's good drivers and place a heavier burden on the driver that is causing the problems, the DUI driver, the reckless speeder, and the uninsured driver. That is what we tried to do in this new law, cut the rates for good drivers, encourage safer driving habits through the use of seat belts, make bad drivers bear the burden of their poor driving, and step up the efforts against the uninsured driver. This is not a new approach. We started in this direction in 1987 with the passage of Act 166 and the implementation of objective standards and the two-tiered system. We augmented this last session with the stiffer penalties enacted in the 1988 Highway Safety Act. And now we take this approach another step with the Automobile Insurance Reform Act. This brings me to my second point. Despite reports to the contrary, we will not know the full impact of this Bill until we have a chance see it work. Remember this law will not operate in a vacuum. We are just now closing out the first year under Act 166. And we have barely operated six months under the Highway Safety Act. Before we jump to any more conclusions, we ought to allow these three laws to act in concert. They all are cut from the same cloth, they all are attempting to do the same thing. Let's see what impact they have together. Finally, I think it's important for all of us to remember that there's no easy answer to Automobile Insurance Reform. I have heard Robert Brown say many times, and it bears repeating here, that if there was an easy solution to auto insurance rates, we would have passed a bill in January and have all gone home heroes. I don't have to tell anyone here that this is a very complicated issue. There are many factors that have an impact on our efforts. Rising medical costs are one. South Carolina's lousy highway safety record is another. During last December's organizational session, Speaker Sheheen and I both spoke before this body of the negligible effect Auto Insurance Reform would have unless South Carolina also corrected its bad driving habitat. Let me remind you that one of the reasons we have the insurance rates we have in this State is because we consistently have ranked among the top states in highway safety deaths per vehicle mile. In 1987, the State Highway Department reported that the number of motor vehicle accidents reached an all time high in South Carolina. The number of fatalities was the second highest total, with alcohol and drugs playing an ever increasing role. What I fear most is the finger pointing that has occurred over this Bill will somehow send the erroneous message to the public that we have sympathy for the guy driving drunk. That we're passing these tougher laws against DUI drivers and reckless motorists, but we don't really mean it. That we don't want to cause them too much discomfort. That is the wrong message to send, particularly with this State's historically poor highway safety record. So let me urge you not to be divided by name calling and misinformation. Let us continue to work together to encourage good driving habits among the 80 percent of the motorists in this State who have safe driving records. And to look at this new act as a continuation of the approach we began in 1987. Thank you."

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 840 -- Senators Hayes, Wilson and Peeler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE SOUTH CAROLINA JAYCEES UPON SOUTH CAROLINA BECOMING THE FIRST STATE EVER TO BE NAMED BEST JAYCEE STATE IN CONSECUTIVE YEARS AND TO CONGRATULATE THE ROCK HILL JAYCEES UPON BEING NAMED TOP JAYCEE CHAPTER IN SOUTH CAROLINA FOR THE THIRD CONSECUTIVE YEAR.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 844 -- Senators Rose, Bryan, Courson, Drummond, Fielding, Giese, Gilbert, Hayes, Helmly, Hinds, Hinson, Holland, Land, Leatherman, Lee, Leventis, Lindsay, Long, Lourie, Macaulay, Martin, Martschink, Matthews, McConnell, McGill, McLeod, Mitchell, Moore, Mullinax, O'Dell, Passailaigue, Patterson, Peeler, Pope, Russell, Saleeby, Setzler, Horace C. Smith, J. Verne Smith, Nell W. Smith, Stilwell, Thomas, Waddell, Williams and Wilson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE CHINESE PEOPLE SEEKING FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY AND TO DEPLORE THE VIOLENT REPRESSION OF PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATIONS AND TO ASK FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE EVERYWHERE TO DENOUNCE THE TRANSGRESSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN COMMITTED AGAINST THE CHINESE.

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 841 - Senators Passailaigue, Bryan, Giese, Helmly, Leatherman, Lindsay, McConnell, Rose, Setzler, Horace C. Smith, J. Verne Smith, Stilwell, Thomas and Wilson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO MEMORIALIZE THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL TO REINSTATE SHOELESS JOE. JACKSON AS A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING IN PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL.

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 849 -- Senator Macaulay: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO RAYMOND D. FENDLEY OF WESTMINSTER IN OCONEE COUNTY FOR HIS TWENTY-FOUR YEARS OF DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AS DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE PIONEER RURAL WATER DISTRICT OF ANDERSON AND OCONEE COUNTIES UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT AND WISHING HIM HEALTH AND HAPPINESS IN ALL OF HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.

The following Bill and Joint Resolution were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

H. 4156 - Rep. Harwell: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO NAME THE OVERPASS BRIDGE PRESENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF U. S. 301 AND S. C. 38 IN DILLON COUNTY THE "S. NORWOOD GASQUE BRIDGE" AND TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO ERECT APPROPRIATE SIGNS AT BOTH ENDS OF THE BRIDGE ON WHICH THE NAME IS CLEARLY INDICATED.

Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

H. 4157 -- Rep. McElveen: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF WHITAKER'S INC. OF SUMTER IN SUMTER COUNTY.

On motion of Rep. McELVEEN, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Baker                  Barber                 Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Bennett
Blackwell              Blanding               Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Faber
Fair                   Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Ferguson               Glover
Gordon                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harwell
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Holt
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Kay                    Kirsh
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Kohn                   Koon                   Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, L.
Mattos                 McAbee                 McBride
McCain                 McEachin               McGinnis
McKay                  McLeod                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Phillips               Quinn                  Rama
Rhoad                  Rogers, J.             Rogers, T.
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Sturkie                Taylor
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Waldrop                Washington
Wells                  White                  Wilkes
Wilkins                Williams, D.           Winstead
Wofford                Wright

I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on June 19, 1989.

Larry Gentry                      Robert N. McLellan
Doug McTeer                       William D. Boan
Grady Brown                       Daniel E. Martin
John B. Williams                  Gene Stoddard
Paul Derrick                      Steve Lanford
Dick Elliott                      Alex Harvin, III
Jarvis R. Klapman                 Joseph T. McElveen
Tom Limehouse                     Samuel R. Foster

The SPEAKER granted Rep. McABEE a temporary leave of absence.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. WHIPPER a leave of absence for the week due to a meeting with the National Congress of Christian Education.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. BENNETT a temporary leave of absence to attend a Governor's meeting on the Wetlands.

The following Bills were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:

S. 838 -- Senator Waddell: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BEAUFORT COUNTY TO CHARGE AND COLLECT STUDENT MATERIAL FEES AND TO PROVIDE FOR A WAIVER OF THESE FEES UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

S. 822 -- Senators Setzler, Giese, Lourie, Patterson and Courson: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF CAROLINA GYMNASTIC CENTER BOOSTER CLUB, OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

The following Bill was taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments.

S. 812 - Senator Gilbert: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF THE BOYS CLUB OF FLORENCE.

The following Bill was read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.

S. 522 Senators Lourie, Land, Fielding, Mitchell, Martschink and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 58-25-40, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBER GOVERNMENTS, REGARDLESS OF POPULATION, MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE MEMBER ON THE GOVERNING BOARD OF AN AUTHORITY.

Rep. J. ROGERS moved that the House recede until 2:00 P.M., which was adopted.

At 2:00 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.

The question of a quorum was raised.

A quorum was later present.

Rep. WILKINS moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, which was agreed to.

The SPEAKER appointed Rep. L. MARTIN, Chairman of the Committee.

At 2:50 P.M., the Committee arose.

On motion of Rep. SHEHEEN a Report of the Committee of the Whole was ordered printed in the Journal.

Rep. WILKINS asked the House for its guidance in instructing the conferees on the following questions:

1. Should the Senate be allowed to increase its size from its present number of 46 Senators to a maximum membership of 48 Senators?

By a division vote of 11-72 the House refuses to increase the size of the Senate from 46 to 48.

2. Should the Senate be allowed to originate any Bill appropriating revenue?

Explanation: Section 15, Article III, of the Constitution states any Bill raising revenue must originate in the House and may be altered, amended or rejected in the Senate. All other Bills may originate in either house. The Senate proposes to amend this section to explain that the phrase "all other Bills" includes Bills appropriating revenues (authorizing the expenditure of a designated amount of funds for specific purposes).

By a division vote of 86-0 the House refuses to allow a Bill appropriating revenue to originate in the Senate.

3. Should either house be permitted, with the vote of 2/3's of the members of that house, to adjourn for more than three days without the other house's consent in the first four weeks of the session?

Explanation: Section 21 of Article III states neither house, during session, may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other body.

By a division vote of 54-43 the House refuses to permit either house to adjourn for more than three days without the other house's consent in the first four weeks of the session.

Rep. WAITES moved that the House reject the Senate proposal in Article III, Section 30, page 12 of the Side-by-Side Comparison of the House and Senate Versions of H. 3879 by the Judiciary Committee, lines 10 through 19, which was agreed to by a vote of 39-24.

Rep. SIMPSON moved that the membership in the Senate be changed to 48 and in the House be changed to 120 which was not agreed to.

Rep. SIMPSON moved that the membership in the Senate be changed to 50 and in the House be changed to 125 which waa not agreed to.

The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1989

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R. 205, S. 804 by a vote of: Ayes 46;
Nays 0
(R205) S. 804 - Senator Pope: AN ACT TO REPEAL ACT 735 OF 1936 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE NEWBERRY COUNTY PARK COMMISSION.
Very respectfully,
President

Received as information.

The following was received.

June 6, 1989

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am hereby returning without my approval S. 804, R-205, an Act:
TO REPEAL ACT 735 OF 1936 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE NEWBERRY COUNTY PARK COMMISSION.

This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office dated June 6, 1989 which states in concluding:
". . . S. 804, R-205 of 1989 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to S. 804, R-205 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7.
"Based on the foregoing, we would advice that S. 804, R-205 would be of doubtful constitutionality."

Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor

June 6, 1989
Mark R. Elam
Senior Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11369
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Mr. Elam:

By your letter of June 5, 1989, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of S. 804, R-205, an act repealing Act No. 735 of 1936 as to the Newberry County Park Commission. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality.

In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E. 2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.

The act bearing ratification number 205 of 1989 repeals Act No. 735 of 1936. A review of Act No. 735 of 1936 reveals that the Newberry County Park Commission was created for the development of a county park for the City and County of Newberry. Only Newberry County is apparently affected by this act. Thus, S. 804, R-205 of 1989 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to S. 804, R-205 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E. 2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E. 2d 228 (1976) Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.C. 2d 875 (1974).

Based on the foregoing, we would advise that S. 804, R-205 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.

Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Robert D. Cook
Executive Assistant for Opinions

The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Gentry                 McTeer                 Sheheen
Waldrop

Those who voted in the negative are:

So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The following was received.

June 8, 1989
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker
House of Representatives
State House
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am returning H. 3600, the 1989-90 Appropriations Act, with my vetoes.

I am pleased with the priorities reflected in the Appropriations Act overall. While I would like to have had larger tax cute in 1989, I am gratified that the General Assembly has clearly stated its intention to reduce income tax rates, index income tax brackets to inflation, and lower capital gains taxes over the next few years. This is an important commitment that our State has made to lighten the tax burden on South Carolina taxpayers.

I am encouraged once again by our State's continuing commitment to improving the quality of education at all levels. From full funding of the Education Finance Act to a substantial beginning for the EIA II program to solid support for our technical schools to strong funding of the higher education formula and the Cutting Edge, this Appropriations Act demonstrates our resolve to improve education. All students, from pre school children to retirees expanding their knowledge, will benefit from this additional funding.

Additionally, I am pleased that the Act begins tax credits for businesses to expand support for child care. While I would like for the funding for the tax credits to be higher on the priority first for the contingency surplus, I am satisfied that the credits will be part of our permanent law that can be funded next year if the money does not materialize this year. These tax credits, and the related provisions, put our State at the forefront in addressing the increasingly critical issue of affordable, available quality child care.

The projection of recurring revenue in the Act appears reasonable. The estimate for Part I revenue of $3363 million for FY 89-90 requires a growth rate of 6.8 percent over the latest Board of Economic Advisors' estimate of $3148 for the current fiscal year. Revenues through May of this year are growing at a rate of 7.5 percent. While economic activity appears to be allowing, we should be able to avoid mid-year budget cuts if we can avoid a serious recession.

Despite my satisfaction with the Act overall, I am concerned about four aspects that will create problems if not rectified.

1. Annualization

This Act contains an enormous amount of annualization for the next fiscal year. In other words, much of the new revenue available in FY 90-91 will be necessary to fully fund programs begun in FY 89-90.

This Act contains a number of programs that take effect in the middle of the fiscal year, and will need to be funded with new money, or "annualized," the following year. The primary culprits are an increase in state employee health insurance funding that occurs January 1, 1990, a state employee pay raise that takes effect January 1, 1990, and new facilities at the Department of Corrections that open during the course of the year. A total of more than $48 million will be required in FY 90-91 to continue these commitments that were only partially funded in FY 89-90.

Moreover, this Act funds with non-recurring revenue other programs that some will interpret to be recurring obligations. Local government grants, the Cutting Edge appropriation in higher education, and the new EIA initiatives are all examples of continuing programs funded in part with one time money. Depending on the amount of the contingency supplemental appropriations that are funded, the FY 90-91 money necessary to continue these programs could amount to an additional $93 million. Coupled with the part-year funding, the total annualization in this Act could amount to more than $140 million. That is approximately three-fourths of the normal "new" or growth revenue available in any one fiscal year.

This Act is virtually a two-year Appropriations Act for South Carolina state government. I am putting all state agencies and the citizens who benefit from their services on notice that some of the programs in this Act will not be continued next year. Moreover, the money for new initiatives next year will be almost nil, even if general fund revenues continue to grow at present rates.

2. New Employees

I continue to be concerned by the burgeoning growth in the number of new employees in state government. This Act contains over 2200 new employees, over 1100 of whom are paid by the General Fund. Much of this growth is a consequence of federal mandates to relieve prison overcrowding and improve care at the Department of Mental Health. But other parts of the budget also show substantial increases.

I share the desire of the General Assembly, expressed in proviso 129.22, to "control and restrict the number of personnel employed in the future, without unduly hampering the legitimate functions of state government." Consequently I have vetoed throughout this Act 117 unnecessary new positions.

3. Vacancy Factor

Most state agencies have at any one time a certain percentage of their personnel positions vacant. My Executive budget and the Budget and Control Board's budget recommended a "vacancy factor" of 3 percent for all agencies. In other words, the amount of money appropriated to an agency for its personnel costs would be 97 percent of the amount necessary to fund all of the agency's positions.

In an effort to balance the budget, the Senate increased the vacancy factor to 4 percent, and the Conference Committee increased it again to 4.7 percent. This was in effect an across-the-board cut to agencies by reducing the amount of money allocated to pay their personnel costs.

Many agencies will be able to absorb that cut with little difficulty. But I am concerned that some agencies, particularly those involved with public safety, may not have the flexibility to absorb the cut without laying off employees or severely curtailing vital operations. The State Law Enforcement Division, for example, will either have to fire employees or drastically reduce its ability to fight drugs by cutting back on its new laboratory operations as a result of this cut. The Department of Youth Services may be facing lay-offs as well. While I am not opposed to lay-offs in hard budgetary times, I am opposed to laying off law enforcement officers and prison guards in years of strong revenue growth. Doing so would unnecessarily jeopardize public safety.

The Act includes a provision for hard-pressed agencies to seek an exemption from the vacancy rate increase from the Budget and Control Board. But an exemption will only allow an agency to transfer money from other budgetary lines to the personnel line. Some agencies like SLED and DYS will not have the flexibility to transfer sufficient money to avoid lay-offs. These agencies will need additional personnel money, but the Act makes no provision for that money. In other words, the Act allows exemptions, but allocates no money to fund the exemptions.

The Budget Division of the Budget and Control Board has determined that it would cost $4.2 million to exempt from the vacancy rate increase those employees directly responsible for institutional care and public safety. These employees guard inmates, enforce our laws, and supervise institutionalized patients such as those at the Department of Mental Health. These are positions we can least afford to leave vacant.

Therefore, I have vetoed $4.2 million in expenditures to create a pool of money to fund exemptions from the vacancy rate increase. I see this as a necessary step to carry out the intent of the General Assembly. The agencies from which I have vetoed money are primarily those that received the largest increases in the Act. The Budget and Control Board does not have the authority to allocate the $4.2 million to agencies. Therefore I intend, if these vetoes are sustained, to ask the General Assembly in January 1990 to appropriate sufficient money from this pool to fund the exemptions that the Budget and Control Board believes are necessary to avoid severe hardship and protect public safety.

4. Germaneness

Shortly after I became Governor, I agreed with Lieutenant Governor Nick Theodore and Speaker of the House Robert Sheheen to work in concert to keep non-germane items out of the Appropriations Act. As a result of our agreement, the Chamber of Commerce dropped a court suit against the General Assembly that challenged this practice of "bobtailing" non-germane legislation onto the Appropriations Act.

I have become concerned that we are lapsing back into the old habit of attaching virtually any piece of legislation to the Appropriations Act. I feel an obligation to remove from the Act any proviso that is not germane, even though in many cases I support the substance of the proviso. To do otherwise would invite a new court case. Consequently, I have vetoed all sections that, in my judgement, do not meet the standard of germaneness in the House rules: "provisions for appropriating funds, provisions affecting revenue, and rules, regulations, directives and procedures relative thereto."

Unless I have specified otherwise, all expenditure vetoes refer to general funds only.

VETO 1. Part I. Section 14, Budget and Control Board, Page 14-058. Proviso 14.77. Computer Study

This proviso establishes a study of computer needs in state government to determine the most efficient means of meeting those needs. I am vetoing this proviso because it duplicates a computer study established by Part II, Section 59, to be conducted by the Coordinating Council for Economic Development.

VETO 2, Part I, Section 17. The Citadel. Page 17-007. Line 36, Administrative Assistant (1.00 Other Funded FTE)

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. I will support efforts to use other vacant positions to continue this activity. This is part of my overall effort to control the growth of new employees in state government.

VETO 3. Part I. Section 18. Clemson. Page 18-001, Line 12, Student Services Program Coordinator (1.00 General Fund FTE)

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. I will support efforts to use other vacant positions to continue this activity. This is part of my overall effort to control the growth of new employees in state government.

VETO 4. Part I. Section 18, Clemson. Page 18-001, Line 16. Systems Programmer (1.00 General Fund FTE)

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. I will support efforts to use other vacant positions to continue this activity. This is part of my overall effort to control the growth of new employees in state government.

VETO 5. Part I. Section 18, Clemson, Page 18-007, Line 36, Supplies and Materials ($52,111)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 6. Part I. Section 19, College of Charleston, Page 19-005, Line 41, Public Information Specialist II (.80 General Fund FTE, .20 Other Funded FTE)

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. I will support efforts to use other vacant positions to continue this activity. This is part of my overall effort to control the growth of new employees in state government.

VETO 7. Part I, Section 19, College of Charleston, Page 19-005, Line 24, Temporary Positions ($20,000)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 8. Part I. Section 20, Francis Marion College, Page 20-004, Line 37, Admin. Specialist A (1 General Fund FTE)

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. I will support efforts to use other vacant positions to continue this activity. This is part of my overall effort to control the growth of new employees in state government.

VETO 9, Part I, Section 20, Francis Marion College, Page 20-006, Line 15, Travel ($11,941)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 10. Part I, Section 21, Lander College, Page 21-003, Line 33, Admin, Specialist C (.65 General Fund FTE .35 Other Funded FTE)

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. I will support efforts to use other vacant positions to continue this activity. This is part of my overall effort to control the growth of new employees in state government.

VETO 11. Part I, Section 21, Lander College, Page 21-004, Line 1, Travel ($11,041)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 12. Part I, Section 22, S.C. State College, Page 22-001, Line 10, Admin, Specialist A (1 General Fund FTE)

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. I will support efforts to use other vacant positions to continue this activity. This is part of my overall effort to control the growth of new employees in state government.

VETO 13. Part I, Section 22, S.C. State College, Page 22-005. Line 5, Contractual Services ($9,850)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 14. Part I. Section 23A, University of South Carolina, Page 23-003, Line 41, Counselor (4.00 General Fund FTEs)

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. I will support efforts to use other vacant positions to continue this activity. This is part of my overall effort to control the growth of new employees in state government.

VETO 15. Part I. Section 23A, University of South Carolina, Page 23-006, Line 27, Temporary Positions ($90,920)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 16. Part I. Section 23C, USC-Aiken, Page 23-019, Line 8, Electronics Specialist (1 General Fund FTE)

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. I will support efforts to use other vacant positions to continue this activity. This is part of my overall effort to control the growth of new employees in state government.

VETO 17. Part I. Section 23C, USC-Aiken, Page 23-022, Line 15, Supplies and Materials ($19,337)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 18. Part I. Section 23D, USC-Coastal Carolina, Page 23-029, Line 20, Temporary Positions ($20,000)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 19. Part I. Section 23D, USC-Coastal Carolina, Page 23-031, Line 24, Graphic Artist (1 Other Funded FTE)

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. I will support efforts to use other vacant positions to continue this activity. This is part of my overall effort to control the growth of new employees in state government.

VETO 20. Part I. Section 24, Winthrop, Page 24-002, Line 38, Education Program Specialist II (1 Other Funded FTE)

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. I will support efforts to use other vacant positions to continue this activity. This, is part of my overall effort to control the growth of new employees in state government.

VETO 21. Part I. Section 28, Department of Education, Page 28-001, Line 31, Travel ($20,562)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 22. Part I. Section 28, Department of Education, Page 28-002, Line 27, Travel ($164,268)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 23. Part I. Section 28, Department of Education. Page 28-004, Line 8, Travel ($16,545)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 24. Part I. Section 28, Department of Education, Page 28-004, Line 35, Travel ($39,577)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 25. Part I, Section 28, Department of Education, Page 28-005, Line 14, Travel ($19,530)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 26, Part I, Section 28, Department of Education, Page 28-005, Line 37, Travel ($32,670)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 27. Part I, Section 28, Department of Education, Pages 28-031 and 28-032, Proviso 28.71

This proviso directed the State Board of Education to continue pilot-testing of models governing the Principal Incentive Program. Since the pilot-testing has been completed and funds are available to implement the program statewide, the proviso is no longer needed.

VETO 28. Part I, Section 38, Health and Human Services Finance Commission, Page 38-004, Line 4, Medical Contracts, Special Items, Health Contracts ($486,972)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I intend for this money to be taken from the increase in the Act provided for physical and occupational therapy which is a service expansion, and I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to accomplish that result. The intent of this action is to insure the integrity of the basic Medicaid program and to protect the expansion of services to pregnant women and children which is so critical to our fight against infant mortality. If money becomes available at the Finance Commission during the course of the fiscal year, I will ask the Commission to implement the physical and occupational therapy expansions.

After the veto and the one below, the Health and Human Service Finance Commission will be left with an increase in the Act of approximately $33.2 million in state funds, a one year increase of 29 percent.

The money from this veto would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 29. Part I, Section 28, Health and Human Services Finance Commission, Page 38-004, Line 5, Medical Contracts, Special Items, Contractual Services ($824,944)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I intend for this money to be taken from the $5.77 million increase in the Act provided for inpatient hospital rate adjustment, and I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to accomplish that result. I do not believe that this substantial an increase can be fully expended this year due to the time necessary for rebasing and the billing cycle. After this veto and the one above, the Health and Human Service Finance Commission will be left with and increase in the Act of approximately $33.2 million in state funds, a one year increase of 29 percent.

The money from this veto would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 30. Part I, Section 39, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Page 39-006, Line 36, Travel ($162,424)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 31. Part I, Section 39, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Page 39-016, Line 33, Travel ($102,063)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 32, Part I, Section 40, Department of Mental Health, Page 40-001, Line 34, Community Health Nurse (15.00 General Fund FTEs)

I have vetoed these positions, but not the money for the positions. The Department of Mental Health has sufficient vacant positions so that the service can be provided without increasing the total number of authorized FTEs. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to accomplish that result.

VETO 33. Part I, Section 40, Department of Mental Health, Page 40-002, Line 30, Mental Health Counselor I (6.00 General Fund FTEs)

I have vetoed these positions because the Department of Mental Health has sufficient vacant positions so that the service can be provided without increasing the total number of authorized FTEs. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help accomplish that result.

VETO 34, Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-010, Line 38, Fixed Charges and Contributions ($197,341)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. After this and other vetoed expenditures are deducted, the agency would be left with an increase of approximately $12.6 million, an increase of more that 13 percent in general funds. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 35. Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43- 010, Line 40, Equipment ($325,623)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. After this and other vetoed expenditures are deducted, the agency would be left with an increase of approximately $12.6 million, an increase of more than 13 percent in general funds. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 36. Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-010, Line 27, Special Investigator I (40.00 Total and 13.60 General Fund FTEs)

Money was cut for this program in the course of the budgetary process, but positions were not cut by a corresponding amount. Consequently money is not available to fully fund these positions, and it is unnecessary to increase the total number of authorized FTEs.

VETO 37. Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-012, Line 44, Contractual Services ($837,679)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I do intend for this reduction to come from the $4.83 million increase for residential care facilities. These facilities serve an important function, but the increase they received in this Act is exceptional.

The agency asked for an increase for residential care homes of $1.8 million as its 29th priority. The House support an additional $3.0 million, and the Senate raised that amount to $4.83 million. If residential care homes had received an increase comparable to that given to Medicaid providers the increase would have been $1.4 million. After the reduction I have proposed, the remaining increase would be just under $4 million, or more than twice what the agency originally requested.

After this and other vetoed expenditures are deducted, the agency would be left with an increase of approximately $12.6 million, an increase of more that 13 percent in general funds. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 38. Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-014, Line 33, Data Mgt. and Research Analyst II (1.00 total and .50 General Fund FTE)

Money was cut for this program in the course of the budgetary process, but positions were not cut by a corresponding amount. Consequently money is not available to fund these positions, and it is unnecessary to increase the total number of authorized FTEs.

VETO 39. Part I. Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-014, Line 36, Social Services Specialist I (38.00 total and 19.00 General Fund FTEs)

Money was cut for this program in the course of the budgetary process, but positions were not cut by a corresponding amount. Consequently money is not available to fund these positions, and it is unnecessary to increase the total number of authorized FTEs.

VETO 40. Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-014, Line 37, Word Processing Supervisor (1.00 total and .50 General Fund FTE)

Money was cut for this program in the course of the budgetary process, but positions were not cut by a corresponding amount. Consequently money is not available to fund this position, and it is unnecessary to increase the total number of authorized FTEs.

VETO 41. Part I, Section 60, Department of Agriculture, Page 60-002, Line 8, Field Specialist II ($39,600)

This veto is part of my overall effort to control the growth in the number of new employees in state government.

VETO 42. Part I. Section 60, Department of Agriculture, Page 60-002, Line 9, Field Specialist II (2.00 General Fund FTEs)

This veto is part of my overall effort to control the growth in the number of new employees in state government.

VETO 43. Part I, Section 61, Clemson Public Service Activities, Page 61-004, Line 20, Miscellaneous Operating Costs ($398,623)

I do not intend to eliminate the activity funded by this line. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage this reduction. After this reduction, the agency will still receive approximately an 11 percent increase in its budget in FY 89-90. The money would go to the pool discussed above to fund exemptions to the vacancy factor increase.

VETO 44. Part I, Section 72, Old Exchange Building Commission, Page 72-001, Proviso 72.1, Transfer to City of Charleston

I am vetoing this proviso dealing with administrative management of the Old Exchange Building, in 1976 the Rebecca Motte Chapter and the South Carolina Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution entered into a twenty year lease providing for the state management of the Old Exchange Building. Although the Attorney General has advised that this section does not conflict with the terms and conditions of the original lease, I believe that turning the management of the building over to the City of Charleston without the consent of the DAR violates the good faith intent of the lease.

Since the General Assembly removed all FTEs from this section, I will ask the staff of the Budget and Control Board to work with the Commission in developing a management agreement with some entity which satisfies all parties. While the City of Charleston may be a good choice, I believe that the Commission, which has DAR representation, should retain the flexibility to determine the management agent and the terms under which the agreement will be administered.

VETO 45. Part II, Section 5, Voting Machine Facsimile

This proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Act.

VETO 46. Part II, Section 6, Project Priorities for SHIMS

This proviso prohibits the Highway Department from using any factor in determining project priorities for the Strategic Highway Plan for Improving Mobility and Safety (SHIMS) other than those factors specified in the 1976 Code Section 12-27-1280. The proviso also requires all factors to be equally weighted and prohibits the merging of the socioeconomic and transportation factors in determining project priorities.

I am vetoing this proviso for three reasons.

First, the proviso would prohibit the Highway Department from including important factors that have substantial impact on the traffic on our highways that should be reflected in the priorities of our highway construction. For example, a factor for tourism is currently included in the formula used to set project priorities. By any measure, tourism plays a major role in determining the highway transportation needs in many parts of the State. But the tourism factor would be excluded by this proviso.

Second, by fixing the weights of all factors to be equal, the proviso eliminates any flexibility in setting priorities as our State grows, our economy evolves, and our transportation needs change. We need to have the ability to respond to the changing needs of our State's transportation system, and this proviso would bind the Highway Department with a system that is too rigid.

Third, this proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Act.

VETO 47. Part II, Section 7, Higher Order Thinking Skills

This proviso, along with Part II provisos 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 41, duplicate provisions of the Target 2000 legislation, or "EIA II." I strongly support the substance of these provisos, but I am vetoing them from the Appropriations Act because they are redundant since legislation has already passed that I intend to sign.

VETO 48. Part II, Section 8, Center for the Advancement of Teaching

This proviso is redundant because of the Target 2000 legislation. It is also not germane to the Appropriations Act.

VETO 49. Part II, Section 10, Training for Parents of Preschool Children

This proviso is redundant because of the Target 2000 legislation. It is also not germane to the Appropriations Act.

VETO 50. Part II, Section 11, Dropout Programs

This proviso is redundant because of the Target 2000 legislation.

VETO 51. Part II, Section 12, Arts Education

This proviso is redundant because of the Target 2000 legislation. It is also not germane to the Appropriations Act.

VETO 52. Part II, Section 18, School Flexibility Grants

This proviso is redundant because of the Target 2000 legislation.

VETO 53. Part II, Section 15, Employee Cost Savings Program

This proviso is redundant because of the Target 2000 legislation.

VETO 54. Part II, Section 16, Water Recreational Gas Tax for Non-Water Recreational Use

Section 12-27-390 of the 1976 Code allocates one half of one cent of the gasoline tax for a water recreational resources fund to pay for improvements at water recreational facilities around the State. This proviso would allow a portion of that fund to be used for non-water recreational uses.

I consider this one-half cent of the gas tax to be a user fee paid by boaters who purchase gasoline. To divert this revenue to non-water recreational uses would turn a user fee into a general tax. It would also violate the original intent of the water recreational resources fund. I am therefore vetoing this proviso.

VETO 55. Part II, Section 18, Tobacco Advisory Commission

This proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Act.

VETO 56. Part II, Section 20, Transfer of License Plates

This proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Act.

VETO 57. Part II, Section 41, Business-Education Partnership for Excellence in Education

This proviso is redundant because of the Target 2000 legislation. It is also not germane to the Appropriations Act.

VETO 58. Part II, Section 46, Budget and Control Board Approval for Patriots Point Revenue Bonds

I am vetoing this proviso because I am concerned that providing the Budget and Control Board de jure authority for the approval of future bond issues may imply de facto responsibility for the current issue. Given the possibility that Patriots Point Authority may face a $21 million default, I believe that it is unwise to change the arms length relationship between the Authority and the Budget and Control Board at this time. Moreover, if S. 699 is passed, this proviso would be rendered moot through Santee Cooper's assumption of Patriots Point's assets and liabilities.

VETO 59. Part II, Section 51, Truck Driver Training School

This proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Act.

VETO 60. Part III, Section 13, Election Commission. Page III-006, Line 5, Voting Machine Warranties ($282,000)

I am vetoing this proviso because it is unnecessary and is not supported by the State Election Commission. This money would pay for a limited one year warranty. An extended warranty over several years, however, is available from the manufacturer at a comparable price.

VETO 61. Part III, Section 13, Election Commission, Page III-006, Voting Machine Warranties. Proviso 13.1

The rationale for this veto is identical to that for the $282,000 veto explained immediately above.

VETO 62. Part IV, Section 13, Election Commission, Page IV-002, Line 8. Warranty: Counties Voting Machines ($63,503)

The rationale for this veto is identical to that for the $282,000 veto explained above.

VETO 63. Part IV, Section 13, Election Commission, Page IV-002, Voting Machine Warranties, Proviso 13.1

The rationale for this veto is identical to that for the $282,000 veto explained above.

Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor

VETO 1, Part I, Section 14, Budget and Control Board, Page 14-058 Proviso 14.77, Computer Study

Reps. McTEER and WASHINGTON spoke against the Veto.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Bailey, J.
Bailey, K.             Baxley                 Beasley
Bennett                Blackwell              Blanding
Boan                   Brown, G.              Brown, J.
Brown, R.              Burch                  Carnell
Chamblee               Cooper                 Davenport
Faber                  Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Ferguson               Foster
Gentry                 Glover                 Gordon
Gregory                Harris, J.             Hayes
Hodges                 Holt                   Huff
Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.          Kay
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Manly                  Martin, D.             Mattos
McAbee                 McBride                McElveen
McLellan               McLeod                 McTeer
Neilson                Nesbitt                Rogers, J.
Rogers, T.             Rudnick                Sheheen
Short                  Smith                  Snow
Stoddard               Taylor                 Townsend
Tucker                 Waites                 Waldrop
Washington             White                  Wilkes
Williams, D.           Williams, J.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Altman                 Bailey, G.             Baker
Barber                 Brown, H.              Bruce
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Clyborne
Cole                   Corbett                Corning
Fair                   Hallman                Harris, P.
Harwell                Haskins                Hearn
Hendricks              Jaskwhich              Keegan
Klapman                Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Mappus                 Martin, L.
McCain                 McGinnis               McKay
Moss                   Nettles                Quinn
Rama                   Sharpe                 Simpson
Sturkie                Vaughn                 Wells
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 2, Part I, Section 17, The Citadel, Page 17-007, Line 36, Administrative Assistant (1.00 Other Funded FTE)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Blanding               Burriss, M.D.          McBride
McElveen               Tucker                 Williams, D.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Baker                  Barber                 Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Bennett
Blackwell              Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, T.M.          Carnell
Chamblee               Clyborne               Cole
Cooper                 Corbett                Corning
Davenport              Faber                  Fant
Farr                   Felder                 Ferguson
Foster                 Glover                 Gordon
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Haskins                Hearn                  Hendricks
Hodges                 Holt                   Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.
Kay                    Keegan                 Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Klapman
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             Mattos
McCain                 McGinnis               McLellan
McLeod                 McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Quinn                  Rama                   Rogers, J.
Rudnick                Sheheen                Short
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Sturkie                Townsend               Vaughn
Waites                 Wells                  Wilkes
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 3, Part I, Section 18, Clemson, Page 18-001, Line 12, Student Services Program Coordinator (1.00 General Fund FTE)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Burriss, T.M.          McAbee                 McBride
Washington             Williams, D.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Baker                  Barber                 Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Blackwell
Blanding               Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burch
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Faber
Fair                   Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Foster                 Gentry
Glover                 Gordon                 Gregory
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Kay
Keegan                 Keesley                Keyserling
Kirsh                  Klapman                Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             Mattos
McCain                 McElveen               McGinnis
McLellan               McLeod                 McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Quinn                  Rama                   Rogers, J.
Rogers, T.             Rudnick                Sheheen
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Stoddard               Sturkie                Taylor
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Waldrop                Wells
Wilkes                 Winstead               Wofford
Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 4, Part I, Section 18, Clemson, Page 18-001, Line 16, Systems Programmer (1.00 General Fund FTE)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Faber                  McAbee                 McBride
Stoddard

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.             Baker
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Blackwell              Blanding
Brown, H.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, MD.           Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Fair
Fant                   Farr                   Felder
Ferguson               Foster                 Gentry
Gordon                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Haskins
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Hodges                 Huff                   Jaskwhich
Johnson, J.C.          Kay                    Keegan
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, L.             McCain
McElveen               McGinnis               McLellan
McLeod                 McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Quinn                  Rama                   Rogers, J.
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Sturkie                Townsend
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Waldrop                Wells                  Williams, J.
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 5, Part I, Section 18, Clemson, Page 18-007, Line 36, Supplies and Materials ($52,111)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are

Manly                  McAbee                 McBride
Washington

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander,             Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Baker                  Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Blackwell              Blanding
Brown, G.              Brown, H.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Carnell                Chamblee
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Corning                Davenport
Faber                  Fair                   Fant
Farr                   Felder                 Ferguson
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gordon                 Gregory                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Haskins                Hayes
Hearn                  Hendricks              Hodges
Holt                   Huff                   Jaskwhich
Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.          Kay
Keegan                 Keesley                Keyserling
Kirsh                  Klapman                Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Littlejohn
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
McCain                 McElveen               McGinnis
McLellan               McLeod                 McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Nettles                Quinn                  Rama
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Stoddard               Sturkie
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Waldrop                Wells
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 6, Part I, Section 19, College of Charleston, Page 19-005, Line 41, Public Information Specialist II (.80 General Fund FTE, .20 Other Funded FTE)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are

Altman                 Bailey, J.             Washington
White

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Bailey, K.
Barber                 Baxley                 Blackwell
Blanding               Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burch
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Carnell
Chamblee               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Corning                Davenport
Faber                  Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Ferguson               Foster
Gentry                 Gordon                 Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Haskins
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Hodges                 Holt                   Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.
Kay                    Keegan                 Keesley
Kirsh                  Kohn                   Lanford
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, L.             McAbee                 McBride
McElveen               McGinnis               McLellan
McLeod                 McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Quinn                  Rama                   Rudnick
Sharpe                 Smith                  Snow
Stoddard               Townsend               Tucker
Vaughn                 Waites                 Waldrop
Wells                  Wilkes                 Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 7, Part I, Section 19, College of Charleston, Page 19-006, Line 24, Temporary Positions ($20,000)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Altman                 Bailey, J.             Glover
Martin, D.             McAbee                 Washington
Williams, D.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Bailey, G.
Bailey, K,             Baker                  Barber
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Blackwell              Blanding               Brown, H.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burch
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Carnell
Chamblee               Clyborne               Cole
Cooper                 Corbett                Corning
Davenport              Faber                  Fant
Farr                   Felder                 Ferguson
Foster                 Gentry                 Gordon
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Holt
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Kay                    Keegan
Keesley                Kirsh                  Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, L.
McBride                McCain                 McElveen
McGinnis               McLellan               McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Nettles                Quinn                  Rama
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Stoddard               Sturkie                Townsend
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Waldrop                Wells                  Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 8, Part I, Section 20, Francis Marion College, Page 20-004, Line 37, Admin. Specialist A (1 General Fund FTE)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
McAbee

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Baker                  Barber                 Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Blackwell
Blanding               Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Faber
Fant                   Farr                   Felder
Ferguson               Foster                 Gentry
Glover                 Gordon                 Gregory
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Holt                   Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Kay
Keegan                 Keesley                Keyserling
Kirsh                  Klapman                Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, D.
McBride                McCain                 McElveen
McGinnis               McKay                  McLellan
McTeer                 Moss                   Neilson
Nesbitt                Nettles                Quinn
Rama                   Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Short                  Smith
Snow                   Sturkie                Townsend
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Waldrop                Washington             Wells
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 9, Part I, Section 20, Francis Marion College, Page 20-006, Line 15, Travel ($11,941)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Baxley                 Blanding               Gregory
McAbee

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Barber                 Barfield               Beasley
Bennett                Blackwell              Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Carnell                Chamblee               Cole
Cooper                 Corbett                Davenport
Faber                  Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Ferguson               Foster
Gentry                 Glover                 Gordon
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.
Kay                    Keegan                 Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Klapman
Kohn                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, D.             McBride                McCain
McElveen               McGinnis               McKay
McLellan               McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Quinn                  Rama                   Rudnick
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Simpson
Smith                  Snow                   Stoddard
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Waldrop                Wells
White                  Winstead               Wofford
Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 10, Part I, Section 21, Lander College, Page 21-003, Line 33, Admin. Specialist C (.65 General Fund FTE, .35 Other Funded FTE)

Rep. SHEHEEN spoke against the Veto.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Blanding               Carnell                McAbee
McKay                  Tucker

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.             Baker
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Bennett                Blackwell
Boan                   Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Chamblee
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Corning                Davenport
Elliott                Faber                  Fair
Fant                   Farr                   Felder
Ferguson               Foster                 Gentry
Glover                 Gordon                 Gregory
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Holt
Jaskwhich              Keegan                 Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Klapman
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             Mattos
McBride                McElveen               McGinnis
McLellan               McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Quinn                  Rama                   Rudnick
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Short
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Stoddard               Sturkie                Taylor
Townsend               Vaughn                 Waites
Washington             Wells                  White
Wilkes                 Wilkins                Williams, D.
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 11, Part I, Section 21, Lander College, Page 21-004, Line 1, Travel ($11,041)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Blanding               Carnell                Elliott
McAbee

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, K.             Baker
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Bennett                Blackwell
Boan                   Brown, H.              Brown, J.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burch
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Corning                Davenport
Faber                  Fair                   Farr
Felder                 Foster                 Glover
Gordon                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harwell                Haskins
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Hodges                 Huff                   Jaskwhich
Keegan                 Keesley                Keyserling
Kirsh                  Kohn                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
Mattos                 McBride                McGinnis
McKay                  McLellan               McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Nettles                Quinn                  Rama
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Taylor                 Townsend
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Wells                  White                  Wilkes
Wilkins                Winstead               Wofford
Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey, K.             Bennett                Blanding
Brown, J.              Carnell                Elliott
Faber                  Fant                   McAbee
McBride                Taylor                 Tucker
Washington             Wilkes

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Blackwell              Boan
Brown, G.              Brown, H.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Chamblee               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Davenport              Farr
Foster                 Gordon                 Gregory
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Keegan
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, L.
Mattos                 McElveen               McGinnis
McLellan               Neilson                Nesbitt
Nettles                Quinn                  Rama
Rhoad                  Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Snow                   Sturkie
Townsend               Vaughn                 Waites
Wells                  White                  Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey, K.             Bennett                Blanding
Brown, G.              Brown, J.              Carnell
Elliott                Faber                  Fant
Felder                 Ferguson               McAbee
McBride                Taylor                 Washington
Williams, D.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Blackwell              Boan                   Brown, H.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burch
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Foster
Gentry                 Glover                 Gordon
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Haskins                Hayes
Hearn                  Hendricks              Hodges
Jaskwhich              Kay                    Keegan
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Klapman                Kohn                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, L.             Mattos
McElveen               McGinnis               McLellan
McTeer                 Moss                   Neilson
Nesbitt                Nettles                Quinn
Rama                   Rhoad                  Rudnick
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Snow                   Townsend
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Wells                  White                  Wilkes
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Blanding               Brown, J.              Faber
Farr                   Ferguson               McBride

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Bennett                Blackwell
Boan                   Brown, H.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Carnell                Chamblee
Cole                   Cooper                 Corning
Davenport              Elliott                Fant
Felder                 Foster                 Glover
Gordon                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Haskins
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Hodges                 Holt                   Jaskwhich
Johnson, J.C.          Kay                    Keegan
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, D.
Martin, L.             Mattos                 McAbee
McElveen               McGinnis               McLellan
Nesbitt                Nettles                Quinn
Rama                   Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Snow                   Sturkie
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Wells                  White                  Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Blanding               Brown, G.              Ferguson
McBride

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Bennett                Blackwell
Boan                   Brown, H.              Brown, J.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burch
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Carnell
Chamblee               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Corning                Davenport
Elliott                Faber                  Fant
Farr                   Felder                 Foster
Glover                 Gordon                 Gregory
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Holt
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.
Kay                    Keegan                 Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Klapman
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
Mattos                 McAbee                 McElveen
McGinnis               McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Quin                   Rama                   Rudnick
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Short
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Stoddard               Sturkie                Townsend
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Wells
White                  Wilkins                Williams, D.
Williams, J.           Winstead               Wofford
Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Blanding               Carnell                Huff
Keesley                McAbee                 Rudnick
Sharpe                 Smith

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Bailey, J.
Bailey, K.             Barber                 Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Bennett
Blackwell              Boan                   Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee               Cole
Cooper                 Corning                Davenport
Elliott                Faber                  Fant
Farr                   Felder                 Ferguson
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Haskins                Hayes
Hearn                  Hendricks              Hodges
Holt                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Kay                    Keegan                 Keyserling
Kirsh                  Klapman                Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             Mattos
McBride                McElveen               McGinnis
McLellan               McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Quinn                  Rama                   Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Sturkie
Taylor                 Townsend               Tucker
Vaughn                 Waites                 Wells
Wilkes                 Wilkins                Williams, D.
Williams, J.           Winstead               Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Carnell                Huff                   Keesley
Manly                  McAbee                 Rudnick

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Altman                 Bailey, J.
Bailey, K.             Barber                 Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Blackwell
Boan                   Brown, H.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee               Cole
Cooper                 Corbett                Corning
Davenport              Elliott                Faber
Fant                   Farr                   Felder
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Haskins                Hayes
Hearn                  Hendricks              Hodges
Holt                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Kay                    Keegan                 Keyserling
Kirsh                  Klapman                Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Mappus                 Martin, D.
Martin, L.             Mattos                 McBride
McElveen               McGinnis               McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Nettles                Quinn                  Rama
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Short
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Sturkie                Townsend               Tucker
Vaughn                 Wells                  Wilkins
Williams, D.           Williams, J.           Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey, J.             Barfield               Elliott
Holt                   Snow

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, K.             Barber
Baxley                 Beasley                Blackwell
Blanding               Boan                   Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Carnell                Chamblee
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Faber
Fant                   Farr                   Felder
Ferguson               Foster                 Gentry
Glover                 Gordon                 Gregory
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Jaskwhich
Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.          Keegan
Keesley                Kirsh                  Klapman
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
McAbee                 McBride                McElveen
McGinnis               McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Quinn                  Rama                   Rogers, T.
Rudnick                Sheheen                Short
Simpson                Smith                  Stoddard
Sturkie                Townsend               Tucker
Vaughn                 Waites                 Wells
Williams, D.           Williams, J.           Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Barfield               Farr                   McBride
Snow

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Baker                  Barber                 Baxley
Beasley                Blackwell              Blanding
Boan                   Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burch
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Carnell
Chamblee               Clyborne               Cole
Cooper                 Corbett                Corning
Davenport              Elliott                Faber
Fant                   Felder                 Ferguson
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Holt
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.
Keegan                 Keesley                Kirsh
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, D.
Martin, L.             McAbee                 McElveen
McGinnis               McKay                  McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Nettles                Quinn                  Rama
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Stoddard               Sturkie                Taylor
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Wells                  Wilkes
Wilkins                Williams, D.           Williams, J.
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey, K.             Farr                   Ferguson
Mattos                 Nesbitt

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Baker                  Barber                 Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Blackwell
Blanding               Boan                   Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Elliott
Faber                  Fant                   Felder
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Haskins                Hayes
Hearn                  Hendricks              Hodges
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Keegan                 Keesley
Kirsh                  Klapman                Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             McAbee
McBride                McElveen               McGinnis
McTeer                 Moss                   Neilson
Quinn                  Rama                   Rudnick
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Short
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Sturkie                Taylor                 Townsend
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Wells                  White                  Wilkins
Williams, D.           Williams, J.           Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey, K.             Brown, J.              Ferguson
McBride

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Baker                  Barber
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Blackwell              Boan                   Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Elliott
Faber                  Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Foster                 Gentry
Glover                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Hayes
Hearn                  Hendricks              Hodges
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Keegan                 Keesley
Kirsh                  Klapman                Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             Mattos
McAbee                 McElveen               McGinnis
McLellan               McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Quinn
Rama                   Rudnick                Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Stoddard               Sturkie
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Wells                  White
Wilkes                 Williams, D.           Williams, J.
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey, K.             McBride

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.
Baker                  Barber                 Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Blackwell
Blanding               Boan                   Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Carnell                Chamblee
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Corning                Davenport
Elliott                Faber                  Fant
Farr                   Felder                 Ferguson
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Haskins                Hayes
Hearn                  Hendricks              Hodges
Holt                   Huff                   Jaskwhich
Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.          Keegan
Keesley                Kirsh                  Klapman
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
Mattos                 McAbee                 McElveen
McGinnis               McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Quinn
Rama                   Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Sturkie                Townsend
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Wells                  Wilkes                 Wilkins
Williams, D.           Williams, J.           Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
McBride

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Altman                 Bailey, J.
Barber                 Barfield               Beasley
Blackwell              Blanding               Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Cole
Cooper                 Corbett                Corning
Davenport              Elliott                Faber
Fant                   Farr                   Felder
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Harwell                Haskins
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Holt                   Huff                   Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Keegan                 Keesley
Kirsh                  Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, D.
Martin, L.             Mattos                 McAbee
McElveen               McGinnis               McKay
McTeer                 Moss                   Neilson
Nesbitt                Quinn                  Rama
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Sturkie                Taylor
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Wells                  White
Wilkins                Williams, D.           Williams, J.
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 24, Part I, Section 28, Department of Education, Page 28-004, Line 35, Travel 339,577

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey, K.             McBride

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Altman                 Bailey, J.
Baker                  Barber                 Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Blackwell
Blanding               Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Elliott
Faber                  Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Foster                 Gentry
Glover                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Haskins
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Holt                   Huff                   Jaskwhich
Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.          Keegan
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, D.
Martin, L.             Mattos                 McAbee
McElveen               McGinnis               McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Quinn                  Rama                   Rhoad
Rudnick                Sheheen                Short
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Sturkie                Townsend               Tucker
Vaughn                 Waites                 Wells
White                  Wilkes                 Wilkins
Williams, D.           Williams, J.           Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 25, Part I, Section 28, Department of Education, Page 28-005, Line 14, Travel $19,530

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey, K.             Faber                  McBride

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Altman                 Bailey, G.
Bailey, J.             Baker                  Barber
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Blackwell              Blanding               Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Carnell                Chamblee
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Corning                Davenport
Elliott                Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Ferguson               Gentry
Glover                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harwell
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Holt                   Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.
Keegan                 Keesley                Keyserling
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, D.
Martin, L.             Mattos                 McAbee
McElveen               McGinnis               McKay
McTeer                 Moss                   Neilson
Nesbitt                Rama                   Rudnick
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Snow                   Sturkie
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Wells                  White
Wilkins                Williams, D.           Williams, J.
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 26, Part I, Section 28, Department of Education, Page 28-005, Line 37, Travel 32,670

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
McBride

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Altman                 Bailey, G.
Bailey, J.             Baker                  Barber
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Blackwell              Blanding               Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Elliott
Faber                  Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Ferguson               Foster
Gentry                 Glover                 Gregory
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Harwell                Haskins                Hayes
Hearn                  Hendricks              Holt
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Keegan                 Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Klapman
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, L.             Mattos
McAbee                 McElveen               McGinnis
McKay                  McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Quinn
Rama                   Rudnick                Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Sturkie                Taylor
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Wells                  Wilkins
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 27, Part I, Section 28, Department of Education, Pages 28-031 and 28-032, Proviso 28.71

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
McBride

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Baker                  Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Blackwell              Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Carnell                Chamblee
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Corning                Davenport
Elliott                Farr                   Felder
Ferguson               Foster                 Gentry
Glover                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harwell
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Holt                   Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.
Keegan                 Keesley                Kirsh
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, D.
Martin, L.             Mattos                 McAbee
McElveen               McGinnis               McKay
McLellan               McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Quinn
Rama                   Rudnick                Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Sturkie                Townsend
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Wells                  Wilkes                 Wilkins
Williams, D.           Williams, J.           Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 28, Part I, Section 38, Health and Human Services Finance Commission, Page 38-004, Line 4, Medical Contracts, Special Items, Health Contracts $486,972

Rep. BLACKWELL spoke against the veto.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey, K.             Brown, J.              Carnell
Cooper                 Faber                  Johnson, J.C.
McAbee                 McBride                McElveen
Wilkes

Those who voted in the negative are

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Baker
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Blackwell              Boan
Brown, G.              Brown, H.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Corbett                Corning
Davenport              Fair                   Felder
Ferguson               Foster                 Gentry
Glover                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harvin
Harwell                Haskins                Hayes
Hearn                  Hendricks              Hodges
Holt                   Huff                   Jaskwhich
Johnson, J.W.          Kay                    Keegan
Keesley                Kirsh                  Klapman
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
Mattos                 McGinnis               McKay
McLellan               McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Quinn
Rama                   Rhoad                  Rudnick
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Short
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Stoddard               Sturkie                Townsend
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Waldrop                Wells                  Wilkins
Williams, D.           Williams, J.           Wilkins
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 29, Part I, Section 38, Health and Human Services Finance Commission, Page 38-004, Line 5, Medical Contracts, Special Items, Contractual Services $824,944

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, T.C.        Bailey, K.             Carnell
Cooper                 Johnson, J.C.          Kay
Keesley                McAbee                 McElveen
McLellan

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Altman                 Bailey, G.
Bailey, J.             Baker                  Barber
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Blackwell              Boan                   Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Corbett                Corning
Davenport              Felder                 Ferguson
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Harvin                 Harwell
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Holt
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.W.
Keegan                 Kirsh                  Klapman
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
Mattos                 McGinnis               McKay
McTeer                 Moss                   Neilson
Nesbitt                Quinn                  Rama
Rhoad                  Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Snow                   Sturkie
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Waldrop                Wells
Wilkes                 Williams, D.           Williams, J.
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 30, Part I, Section 39, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Page 39-006, Line 36, Travel $162,424

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Baker                  Barber
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Blackwell              Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Elliott
Farr                   Ferguson               Foster
Gentry                 Glover                 Gregory
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Harvin                 Harwell                Haskins
Hearn                  Hendricks              Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.
Kay                    Keegan                 Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Klapman
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
Mattos                 McAbee                 McElveen
McGinnis               McKay                  McTeer
Neilson                Quinn                  Rama
Rhoad                  Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Snow                   Sturkie
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Waldrop                Wells                  Wilkins
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 31, Part I, Section 39, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Page 39-016, Line 33, Travel $102,063

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Boan                   Hodges                 McBride

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Baker
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Blackwell              Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Carnell                Chamblee
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Corning                Davenport
Elliott                Faber                  Felder
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Harvin                 Harwell
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Holt                   Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.
Kay                    Keegan                 Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Klapman
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Martin, L.             Mattos                 McAbee
McElveen               McGinnis               McKay
McTeer                 Moss                   Neilson
Nesbitt                Nettles                Quinn
Rama                   Rhoad                  Rudnick
Sharpe                 Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Snow                   Sturkie
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Waldrop                Wells                  White
Wilkins                Winstead               Wofford
Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 32, Part I, Section 40, Department of Mental Health, Page 40-001, Line 34, Community Health Nurse 15.00 General Fund FTEs

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Brown, J.              Faber                  Farr
McBride                Tucker

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Baker                  Barber
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Blackwell              Blanding               Boan
Brown, G.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Elliott
Felder                 Ferguson               Foster
Gentry                 Glover                 Gregory
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Harvin                 Harwell                Haskins
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Hodges                 Huff                   Jaskwhich
Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.          Kay
Keegan                 Keesley                Keyserling
Kirsh                  Klapman                Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, L.             Mattos                 McAbee
McElveen               McGinnis               McKay
McTeer                 Moss                   Neilson
Nesbitt                Nettles                Quinn
Rama                   Rudnick                Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Snow
Sturkie                Vaughn                 Waites
Waldrop                Wells                  White
Winstead               Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 33, Part I, Section 40, Department of Mental Health, Page 40-002, Line 30, Mental Health Counselor I 6.00 General Fund FTEs

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Farr                   Tucker

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Baker                  Barfield
Beasley                Blackwell              Blanding
Boan                   Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Derrick
Elliott                Felder                 Foster
Gentry                 Glover                 Gregory
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harvin
Harwell                Haskins                Hayes
Hearn                  Hendricks              Hodges
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Kay                    Keegan
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, D.
Martin, L.             McAbee                 McElveen
McGinnis               McKay                  McLellan
McTeer                 Moss                   Neilson
Nesbitt                Nettles                Quinn
Rama                   Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Snow                   Sturkie
Vaughn                 Waites                 Waldrop
Wells                  White                  Wilkins
Williams, D.           Williams, J.           Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 34, Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-010, Line 38, Fixed Charges and Contributions ($197,341)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey, K.             Blackwell              Blanding
Brown, J.              Carnell                McAbee

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Baker
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Boan                   Brown, H.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Corning                Davenport              Derrick
Elliott                Farr                   Felder
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gregory                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Harvin                 Harwell                Haskins
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Hodges                 Holt                   Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.
Kay                    Keegan                 Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, L.             McElveen               McGinnis
McKay                  McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Quinn                  Rama                   Rhoad
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Sturkie                Tucker
Vaughn                 Waites                 Waldrop
Wells                  White                  Wilkins
Williams, D.           Williams, J.           Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 35, Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-010, Line 40, Equipment ($325,623)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey, K.             Blackwell              Blanding
Brown, J.              Carnell                Mattos
McAbee                 McBride

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Baker                  Barber                 Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Brown, H.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burch
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Derrick                Elliott                Farr
Felder                 Ferguson               Foster
Gentry                 Glover                 Gregory
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harris, P.
Harvin                 Harwell                Haskins
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Kay                    Keegan
Keesley                Kirsh                  Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, L.             McElveen               McGinnis
McKay                  McLellan               McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Nettles                Quinn                  Rama
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Sturkie                Tucker
Vaughn                 Waites                 Waldrop
Wells                  Wilkins                Williams, D.
Williams, J.           Winstead               Wofford
Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 36, Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-010, Line 27, Special Investigator I (40.00 Total and 13.60 General Fund FTEs)

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Blanding               Brown, J.              Carnell
McAbee

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Baker                  Barber
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Blackwell              Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burch
Burriss, M.D.          Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Davenport              Derrick                Elliott
Farr                   Felder                 Ferguson
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Harvin                 Harwell
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Kay                    Keegan
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Manly                  Mappus                 Martin, L.
Mattos                 McElveen               McGinnis
McKay                  McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Quinn                  Rama                   Rhoad
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Sturkie                Tucker
Vaughn                 Waites                 Waldrop
Wells                  White                  Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 37, Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-012, Line 44, Contractual Services $837,679

Reps. CARNELL, WASHINGTON and BLACKWELL spoke against the veto.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Barber                 Baxley                 Beasley
Blackwell              Blanding               Boan
Brown, G.              Brown, J.              Brown, R.
Carnell                Chamblee               Cooper
Davenport              Derrick                Elliott
Faber                  Farr                   Ferguson
Foster                 Glover                 Gregory
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harvin
Harwell                Hayes                  Holt
Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.          Kay
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Manly                  Martin, D.             Mattos
McAbee                 McBride                McElveen
McKay                  McLellan               McTeer
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Rhoad                  Rogers, J.             Rogers, T.
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Short                  Smith                  Snow
Stoddard               Taylor                 Tucker
Waites                 Waldrop                Washington
Wells                  White                  Wilkes
Williams, D.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Barfield               Brown, H.              Bruce
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Clyborne
Cole                   Corning                Hallman
Haskins                Hodges                 Jaskwhich
Keegan                 Klapman                Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Mappus                 Martin, L.             McCain
McGinnis               Rama                   Simpson
Sturkie                Vaughn                 Wilkins
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 38, Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-014, Line 33, Data Mgt. and Research Analyst II 1.00 total and .50 General Fund FTE

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Baker
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Blackwell              Blanding
Brown, G.              Brown, H.              Brown, J.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burch
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Carnell
Chamblee               Clyborne               Cole
Cooper                 Corning                Davenport
Derrick                Elliott                Faber
Ferguson               Foster                 Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Harvin                 Harwell
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Holt                   Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Kay
Keegan                 Keesley                Keyserling
Kirsh                  Klapman                Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             Mattos
McAbee                 McBride                McCain
McElveen               McGinnis               McKay
McLellan               McTeer                 Neilson
Nesbitt                Nettles                Quinn
Rama                   Rhoad                  Rudnick
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Short
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Sturkie                Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Waldrop                Wells
White                  Wilkes                 Williams, D.
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 39, Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-014, Line 35 Social Services Specialist I 38.00 total and 19.00 General Fund FTEs

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are

Carnell                McAbee

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Altman                 Bailey, G.
Bailey, J.             Baker                  Barber
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Blackwell              Blanding               Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corning
Davenport              Derrick                Elliott
Faber                  Ferguson               Foster
Glover                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harvin                 Harwell
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Holt                   Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Kay
Keegan                 Keesley                Keyserling
Kirsh                  Klapman                Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Limehouse
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             Mattos
McBride                McCain                 McElveen
McGinnis               McKay                  McTeer
Neilson                Nesbitt                Quinn
Rama                   Rhoad                  Rudnick
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Short
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Sturkie                Vaughn                 Waites
Wells                  Wilkes                 Wilkins
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 40, Part I, Section 43, Department of Social Services, Page 43-014, Line 37, Word Processing Supervisor 1.00 total and .50 General Fund FTE

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Elliott                Ferguson

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.
Baker                  Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Blackwell              Blanding
Brown, G.              Brown, H.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Clyborne               Corning
Davenport              Derrick                Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Harvin                 Harwell
Haskins                Hayes                  Holt
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Keegan                 Keesley                Keyserling
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Mattos
McCain                 McElveen               McGinnis
McKay                  McTeer                 Neilson
Nesbitt                Nettles                Quinn
Rama                   Rhoad                  Rudnick
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Short
Smith                  Sturkie                Townsend
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Waldrop                Wells                  White
Wilkes                 Wilkins                Williams, D.
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 41, Part I, Section 60, Department of Agriculture, Page 60-002, Line 8, Field Specialist II $39,600

Reps. BAXLEY and G. BROWN spoke against the veto.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.             Baker
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Bennett                Blackwell              Blanding
Boan                   Brown, G.              Brown, J.
Brown, R.              Burch                  Carnell
Chamblee               Cooper                 Corbett
Davenport              Elliott                Farr
Felder                 Ferguson               Foster
Glover                 Gregory                Harris, J.
Harvin                 Harwell                Hayes
Hodges                 Holt                   Huff
Johnson, J.W.          Keesley                Keyserling
Manly                  Martin, D.             Mattos
McAbee                 McElveen               McKay
McLellan               McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Rogers, J.             Rudnick                Sheheen
Short                  Smith                  Snow
Stoddard               Taylor                 Townsend
Tucker                 Waldrop                Washington
White                  Wilkes                 Williams, D.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bruce                  Burriss, T.M.          Clyborne
Corning                Fair                   Haskins
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Martin, L.
McGinnis               Simpson                Vaughn
Wells

So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 42, Part I, Section 60, Department of Agriculture,
Page 60-002, Line 9, Field Specialist II

2.00General Fund FTEs

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.             Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Bennett
Blackwell              Boan                   Brown, G.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Burch
Carnell                Chamblee               Cooper
Corbett                Davenport              Elliott
Faber                  Farr                   Felder
Ferguson               Foster                 Gentry
Glover                 Gregory                Harris, J.
Harvin                 Harwell                Hayes
Hodges                 Holt                   Huff
Johnson, J.W.          Keesley                Keyserling
Kirsh                  Koon                   Manly
Martin, D.             Mattos                 McAbee
McBride                McElveen               McKay
McLellan               McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Rogers, J.
Rogers, T.             Rudnick                Sheheen
Short                  Snow                   Stoddard
Taylor                 Townsend               Tucker
Waldrop                Washington             White
Wilkes                 Williams, D.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Baker                  Barber                 Bruce
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Clyborne
Corning                Hallman                Harris, P.
Haskins                Kohn                   Limehouse
Littlejohn             Martin, L.             McGinnis
Vaughn                 Waites

So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 43, Part I, Section 61, Clemson Public Service Activities, Page 61-004, Line 20, Miscellaneous Operating Cost $398,623

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are

Bailey, K.             Bennett                Carnell
Elliott                Harris, P.             McAbee
McBride                Snow                   Stoddard
Taylor                 Townsend               Tucker
Waldrop

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Baker
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Blackwell              Blanding
Boan                   Brown, H.              Brown, J.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burch
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Corning                Davenport
Faber                  Farr                   Ferguson
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gregory                Hallman                Harris, J.
Harvin                 Harwell                Haskins
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Hodges                 Holt                   Huff
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Keegan
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
Mattos                 McElveen               McGinnis
McKay                  McLellan               McTeer
Neilson                Nesbitt                Quinn
Rama                   Rogers, J.             Rudnick
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Sturkie                Vaughn
Waites                 Washington             Wells
White                  Wilkes                 Williams, D.
Williams, J.           Winstead               Wofford
Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 44, Part I, Section 72, Old Exchange Building Commission, Page 72-001, Proviso 72.1, Transfer to City of Charleston

Reps. KEYSERLING, J. BAILEY and WASHINGTON spoke against the veto.

Rep. MAPPUS spoke in favor of the veto.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Altman                 Bailey, G.
Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.             Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Bennett
Blanding               Brown, J.              Burch
Chamblee               Cooper                 Davenport
Faber                  Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Ferguson               Foster
Gentry                 Glover                 Gregory
Harris, J.             Harwell                Hayes
Hodges                 Holt                   Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Kay                    Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Manly
Martin, D.             Mattos                 McBride
McElveen               McLellan               McTeer
Nesbitt                Rhoad                  Rogers, J.
Rogers, T.             Rudnick                Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Stoddard               Taylor
Townsend               Waites                 Waldrop
Washington             White                  Wilkes
Williams, D.           Williams, J.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, T.C.        Baker                  Barber
Brown, H.              Bruce                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Clyborne               Cole
Corbett                Corning                Derrick
Fair                   Hallman                Harris, P.
Haskins                Hearn                  Hendricks
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Keegan
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Mappus                 Martin, L.             McAbee
McCain                 McGinnis               Neilson
Quinn                  Rama                   Sharpe
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Wells
Wilkins                Winstead               Wofford
Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Veto 45, Part II, Section 5, Voting Machine Facsimile. This proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Act.

Rep McTEER spoke against the veto.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Bailey, K.             Barber
Blanding               Boan                   Brown, J.
Chamblee               Cooper                 Elliott
Farr                   Foster                 Gentry
Hayes                  Johnson, J.C.          Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Manly
Martin, D.             McElveen               McTeer
Nesbitt                Rhoad                  Rogers, T.
Rudnick                Sheheen                Snow
Taylor                 Waites                 Waldrop
Wilkes                 Williams, D.           Williams, J.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Altman                 Bailey, G.             Baker
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Blackwell              Brown, H.              Bruce
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Clyborne
Cole                   Corbett                Corning
Davenport              Felder                 Ferguson
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harwell
Haskins                Hearn                  Hendricks
Holt                   Huff                   Kay
Keegan                 Klapman                Kohn
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Mappus                 Martin, L.             McGinnis
McKay                  Moss                   Neilson
Quinn                  Rama                   Sharpe
Smith                  Tucker                 Vaughn
Wells                  Wilkins                Winstead
Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Rep. SIMPSON moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow, which was agreed to.

Veto 46 Part II, Section 6, Project Priorities for SHIMS

Reps. McTEER, SHEHEEN and SHORT spoke against the veto.

Rep. CORBETT spoke in favor of the veto.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.             Barber
Baxley                 Beasley                Blackwell
Blanding               Boan                   Brown, J.
Burch                  Carnell                Chamblee
Cooper                 Davenport              Faber
Fant                   Farr                   Felder
Ferguson               Foster                 Gentry
Glover                 Gregory                Harris, J.
Hayes                  Hendricks              Hodges
Holt                   Huff                   Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Kay                    Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Manly
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             Mattos
McAbee                 McBride                McElveen
McGinnis               McLellan               McTeer
Neilson                Nesbitt                Rhoad
Rogers, J.             Rogers, T.             Rudnick
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Snow                   Taylor
Townsend               Tucker                 Waites
Waldrop                Washington             White
Wilkes                 Williams, D.           Williams, J.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bailey, G.             Barfield               Brown, H.
Bruce                  Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Cole                   Corbett                Corning
Derrick                Fair                   Hallman
Harris, P.             Harwell                Haskins
Hearn                  Jaskwhich              Keegan
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Littlejohn
Mappus                 McCain                 McKay
Quinn                  Rama                   Sharpe
Sturkie                Vaughn                 Wells
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Rep. BARFIELD moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 46 was sustained and the motion was noted.

Rep. J. ROGERS moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. MAPPUS demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.

The motion to adjourn was agreed to by a division vote of 72 to 21.

Further proceedings were interrupted by adjournment, the pending question being consideration of the Vetoes.

The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:

H. 3642 - Reps. Keegan, Corbett, Elliott, Harvin and Barfield: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE NEW BRIDGE ON STATE HIGHWAY 544 WHICH CROSSES THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY IN THE SOCASTEE COMMUNITY OF HORRY COUNTY THE "BENJAMIN E. THRAILKILL, JR. BRIDGE".

H. 4153 -- Rep. Fair: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE BEREA HIGH SCHOOL BAND IN GREENVILLE UPON RECEIVING AN INVITATION TO PERFORM IN THE LORD MAYOR OF WESTMINSTER'S NEW YEAR'S DAY PARADE IN LONDON, ENGLAND.

H. 4154 -- Rep. Fair: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE DR. THOMAS E. BARTON, JR., PRESIDENT OF GREENVILLE TECHNICAL COLLEGE, UPON BEING NAMED ONE OF THE TOP FIFTY PRESIDENTS OF TWO-YEAR COLLEGES IN THE UNITED STATES.

H. 4155 -- Reps. Corbett and Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF MR. WILLIAM ARTHUR JAMES OF HORRY COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.

At 5:10 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. HUFF adjourned in memory of ow beloved colleague, Representative BILL CORK, to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.

This web page was last updated on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 1:23 P.M.