Printed Page 640, Feb. 1
| Printed Page 660, Feb. 1
|
Printed Page 640, Feb. 1
| Printed Page 660, Feb. 1
| Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. CROMER explained the amendment.
Rep. QUINN moved to table the amendment.
Rep. CROMER demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Askins Bailey Boan Brown, H. Brown, T. Cain Carnell Cato Cave Chamblee Cooper Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Felder Fulmer Hallman Harrell Harris, P. Harrison Harvin Herdklotz Huff Hutson Keegan Kelley Klauber Knotts Lanford Law Limehouse Littlejohn Marchbanks McAbee McKay McMahand Quinn Rhoad Rice Riser Robinson Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Sheheen Shissias Smith, D. Smith, R. Stuart Tripp Trotter Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Whipper, S. White Wilkins Williams Witherspoon Wofford Worley Wright Young, A. Young, J.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Baxley Breeland Brown, G. Brown, J. Byrd
Clyburn Cotty Cromer Fair Fleming Gamble Govan Harris, J. Harwell Haskins Hines Howard Inabinett Kennedy Keyserling Kirsh Koon Limbaugh Lloyd Martin McCraw McElveen McTeer Meacham Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Phillips Richardson Rogers Simrill Spearman Stille Thomas Townsend Tucker Wilder Wilkes
So, the amendment was tabled.
Reps. KIRSH and SIMRILL proposed the following Amendment No. 8 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\JIC\5342HTC.95), which was tabled.
Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, Section 1, page 1 by striking lines 17 through 42 and on page 2 by striking lines 1 and 2 and inserting:
/Sum of 38,787,632 dollars, if so much is necessary is appropriated from the general fund of the State to the State Budget and Control Board Division of Operations for State House renovations./
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. KIRSH explained the amendment.
Rep. H. BROWN spoke against the amendment.
Rep. ROBINSON moved to table the amendment.
Rep. KIRSH demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.
The amendment was then tabled by a division vote of 80 to 12.
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE proposed the following Amendment No. 11 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\JIC\5357HTC.95), which was tabled.
Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, SECTION 1, page 2, by adding an appropriately numbered item immediately after line 2 to read
/( ) Winthrop College
School of Education
Facility 500,000/.
Renumber items and sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE explained the amendment.
Rep. A. YOUNG moved to table the amendment.
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Bailey Baxley Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Cain Cato Chamblee Cooper Cotty Cromer Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Fair Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Harvin Haskins Herdklotz Huff Hutson Jennings Keegan Kelley Keyserling Klauber Knotts Koon Law Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Marchbanks McAbee McKay McTeer Meacham Quinn Rhoad Richardson Riser Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Sheheen Shissias Smith, D. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stuart Thomas Townsend Tripp Tucker Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Whipper, S. Wilkes Wilkins Williams Witherspoon
Wofford Worley Wright Young, A. Young, J.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Beatty Breeland Brown, T. Carnell Cave Clyburn Harwell Hines Howard Inabinett Kirsh Lloyd McCraw McMahand Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Phillips Simrill Whipper, L. White Wilder
So, the amendment was tabled.
Reps. LITTLEJOHN, COOPER, DAVENPORT, MEACHAM, VAUGHN, CAIN, EASTERDAY, HASKINS, RICE, A. YOUNG, STODDARD, SIMRILL, LANFORD, WHATLEY, McCRAW, TROTTER, TRIPP, KOON, D. SMITH, QUINN, SHARPE, WRIGHT, WITHERSPOON and KNOTTS proposed the following Amendment No. 12 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\JIC\5358HTC.95), which was ruled out of order.
Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/SECTION ___. All portraits, flags, banners, monuments, statues, and plaques which may be removed from the State House pursuant to the renovations partially funded by this joint resolution must be returned to their original location when the State House is reoccupied unless the General Assembly shall otherwise direct./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. LITTLEJOHN explained the amendment.
Rep. WHITE raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 12 was out of order as it was not germane.
Rep. LITTLEJOHN: "Mr. Speaker, this amendment ties directly to the House renovations, which we have already passed. It ties directly to that."
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE: "Does it mean that all the desks and everything will have to go back exactly as they are now?"
SPEAKER WILKINS: "It applies to portraits, flags, banners, monuments, statutes and plaques. It would not be desks."
Rep. LITTLEJOHN: "Anything that we have already mandated, that is hanging on the walls, plaques, pictures out in the hall, things that we put there by resolution over the years, which mean South Carolina, the history of South Carolina."
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE: "Mr. Speaker, did you rule on the Point of Order on germaneness of this?"
SPEAKER WILKINS: "No, I did not, I thought you rose to be heard on that Point. I would like to hear from you if you have any argument you would like to make on that Point. I am going to rule on it shortly, after I give everybody a chance to be heard."
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE: "It has nothing to do with money."
SPEAKER WILKINS: "Anybody else want to be heard?"
Rep. SHEHEEN: "Under Rule 5.3, the rule says that the General Appropriations Bill and Supplemental Appropriations Bill shall only include provisions for appropriating funds, provisions affecting revenue and rules, regulations and directives and procedures relative thereto. No amendment shall be in order unless its substantial effect is directly germane to those purposes. I assume the intention of this proviso is to keep the flag flying on the dome after the renovations are completed, but what it does is broadranging procedure governing duties which are statutorily delegated to the State House Committee, statutorily delegated to the Clerk of the House and Clerk of the Senate, statutorily delegated to the Lt. Governor and the Speaker of the House. I think it affects those duties, but it doesn't affect revenue."
SPEAKER WILKINS: "The question is whether it is germane to the Appropriations Bill and not whether it affects those duties. Right?"
Rep. SHEHEEN: "That is exactly right. I believe it is more germane to those duties and does not directly relate to the revenues that are expended in the Appropriations."
SPEAKER WILKINS: "I am going to refer Mr. Sheheen to a March, 1991 Point of Order. Anticipating that this might come up, we got a little
Do you want to be heard? Now is the time to be heard."
Rep. QUINN: "Mr. Speaker, this Amendment deals directly with the State House Renovations Project. I mean, it is 17 million dollars funded and we are instructing the use of that money and it points clearly to that line item."
SPEAKER WILKINS: "Mr. Quinn, I am not sure it does. I mean you got 17 million in Section 1, Subsection 1, appropriated, that is all it says, in this amendment, it says all portraits, flags, etc. shall be returned."
Rep. QUINN: "Pursuant to renovations partially funded by this Joint Resolution."
SPEAKER WILKINS: "Do you think the key words `partially funded' make it germane?"
Rep. QUINN: "I think it makes it germane and I think it also, in the act of renovating, and moving all of these things, the care and handling of those objects."
SPEAKER WILKINS: "Anyone else have any input?"
Rep. HASKINS: "Mr. Speaker, I don't have the precedent that you cited, but did it actually state anything about the expenditure of funds or was it strictly seeking to regulate the policy of the college."
SPEAKER WILKINS: "It regulated the policy and I do realize that there is a distinction in that because it dealt with a Part II proviso in that it did directly relate to revenue being generated. It did reference that, but it dealt with policy of state supported universities."
Rep. HASKINS: "I think the difference here is that this amendment is a directive as to the procedure for spending, for using those funds. It states that those funds are to be used in the renovations but as a directive as part of the renovations that all the pictures and plaques are to be returned to the Chambers. I think that that provision in Rule 5.3 where it says that the General Appropriations Bill and Supplemental Appropriations Bill shall include only provisions for appropriating funds, provisions affecting revenue and rules, regulations, directives and
SPEAKER WILKINS: "I agree with that, Mr. Haskins, but it goes on to say that no proviso shall be in a permanent part of the Bill unless it directly relates to an appropriation. In the next sentence, the provisions of this paragraph shall be narrowly and strictly construed with regard to all provisions and amendments to the General Appropriations Bill and Supplemental Appropriations Bill. The Rules mandate that I give it strict construction. I just need to look at some of the precedents."
Rep. McTEER: "I would... former Rep. Woods would have been one of the precedents that you might want to look at when he tried to do something similar to take the flag down during the Appropriations Bill. During that time..."
SPEAKER WILKINS: "Which precedent is that?"
Rep. McTEER: "I am not sure what year, but it would have been Rep. Robert Woods from Charleston who tried to add a section that would ensure that it stayed up, but beyond that, back then, we had these substantial effect amendments. We have a long history that such amendments are just very loosely tied but have further substantial effects and not allowed in Appropriations Bill, even after we have precedents, we have strengthened the Rules further by adding the substantial effect language and the strictly construed language to it. I think a combination of our prior precedents along with the Rules changes to even further strengthen germaneness rulings indicates that it is really not that close of a call on it."
Rep. QUINN: "I'll try not be repetitive with this, but in this money, that we are putting up here, this money is going to be used again. We are moving everything out of this place with the money that is funded in this Resolution. And all we are doing with this Amendment is constructing them to replace the things that they are going to move anyway with the funding that we are giving them in this Resolution. If this amendment weren't there, Mr. Speaker, they still are going to take the portraits down, they are still going to take the statue down and take the flag down. What we are directing, is that no matter what, unless we otherwise direct them, they put them back up."
SPEAKER WILKINS: "It appears to me, Mr. Quinn, the way the amendment is drawn, it relates to a policy of returning things in their place, more than a direct appropriation which the Rules says the Amendments have to directly apply to. Help me out, but it looks to me
Rep. QUINN: "Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that the precedents that you are using to compare this to might be accurate if we were talking about funding for building a center for sexual harassment or something like that, but we are talking about direct funds and they are going to move this anyway."
SPEAKER WILKINS: "I will look at a couple more... I don't want to rely on just one precedent."
Rep. CROMER: "I just would say to put it more simply and less legally that if it deals with a procedure or a policy, like the removal and putting back in a certain place, it has nothing to do with an appropriation, so the ruling could be made to sustain the Point of Order on germaneness because it has nothing to do with any type of appropriations whatsoever, just a practice."
Rep. HERDKLOTZ: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker... It is very obvious that in the hanging of pictures, the replacing of fixtures within this Hall, it is going to require the expenditure of money. If they are not put back, then money will not be expended. So, although, I would agree that this has to do with a policy, it also has to do with the direct expenditure of funds or nonexpenditure and is therefore related to the item."
SPEAKER WILKINS: "There lies the issue in the question... I am ready to
rule. Rule 5.3 and the precedents that I have been able to find indicate that I
am bound to narrowly and strictly construe the germaneness provision.
Particularly dealing with the Appropriations Bill and the Supplemental
Appropriations Bill. I think there is even a higher level of germaneness
standard. I think the purpose, as previously stated in one of the other
precedents, was that this Rule was designed for preventing state law from being
amended in the Appropriations Bill, unless it directly related to the
expenditure. If this Amendment were adopted, - and I am not saying that it
would be or wouldn't be, but if it was, - it would directly amend Section 10-1-
40 of the Code of Laws now in existence, which states that no alteration or
renovations of the State House shall be undertaken without the approval of the
State House Committee. So, for those reasons stated, I am going to sustain the
Point of Order."
Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, by reducing the amount in Section 1 line 22 from 17,000,000 to 16,000,000 and further inserting Sections 3 and 4 as follows:
Section 3. One million dollars must be set aside and made available to the Office of Local Government of the State Budget and Control Board for use in ensuring that military bases and any other national defense facilities in this State are not adversely impacted by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510). These funds may be expended pursuant to criteria developed by the Board. Unexpended funds from this setaside revert to the use of the Coordinating Council for Economic Development.
Section 4. This joint resolution takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Rep. RICHARDSON explained the amendment.
Rep. McELVEEN spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. H. BROWN moved to table the amendment.
Rep. RICHARDSON demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Bailey Brown, H. Cain Carnell Cato Chamblee Cooper Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Fair Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Haskins Herdklotz Huff Keegan Kelley Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Limehouse Marchbanks McAbee McKay Meacham Moody-Lawrence Quinn Rice Riser Robinson Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Simrill Smith, R.
Stille Stoddard Stuart Tripp Trotter Tucker Vaughn Wells Whatley Wilkins Williams Witherspoon Wofford Wright Young, A.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Baxley Breeland Brown, G. Brown, T. Cave Clyburn Cotty Cromer Govan Harvin Hines Howard Inabinett Jennings Kennedy Keyserling Kirsh Littlejohn Lloyd Martin McCraw McElveen McMahand McTeer Neal Neilson Phillips Rhoad Richardson Rogers Scott Sheheen Shissias Smith, D. Spearman Thomas Whipper, L. Whipper, S. White Wilder Worley Young, J.
So, the amendment was tabled.
Rep. SHEHEEN proposed the following Amendment No. 14 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\JIC\5354HTC.95), which was tabled.
Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, SECTION 1, beginning on page 1, by striking items (2), (3), (4), (6), and (9) and by adding an appropriately numbered item immediately after line 2, page 2 to read:
/( ) Retiring school bus bonded
indebtedness 14,862,632/.
Renumber sections and items to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. SHEHEEN explained the amendment.
Printed Page 640, Feb. 1
| Printed Page 660, Feb. 1
|