Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 10:00 a.m.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by Rev. Charles E. Seastrunk, Jr. as follows:

Our thought for today is from Jeremiah 32:38: "They shall be My people and I will be their God."
Let us pray. Loving God, melt our fearful and stubborn hearts and mold these, Your people, called to lead this State to be Your faithful people. Provide for them to take their moral and legal obligations seriously. Bless our leaders of this State and Nation. Be present with each of these leaders. Keep our defenders of freedom safe and comfort those at home. In Your name we pray. 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 yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

The following was received:

May 25, 2004
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk, South Carolina House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, SC 29211

Dear Mrs. McKinney:

This letter is to notify you that as of Tuesday, June 1, 2004, I am resigning as a member of the House Legislative Ethics Committee. It has been an honor and privilege to serve on the committee.

Sincerely,
Becky D. Richardson

Received as information.

Document No. 2882
Agency: Department of Consumer Affairs
Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Section 37-17-10(F)
Prescription Drug Discount Cards
Received by Speaker of the House of Representatives
February 3, 2004
Referred to Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee
Withdrawn and Resubmitted April 12, 2004

The following was introduced:

H. 5371 (Word version) -- Rep. Bingham: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH CAROLINA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JOHN CONE OF COLUMBIA UPON BEING CHOSEN THE 2004 ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE OF THE YEAR BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SOCIETY OF ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVES.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5372 (Word version) -- Rep. Cobb-Hunter: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND RECOGNIZE JOHNNIE WRIGHT, SR., ORANGEBURG COUNTY COUNCILMAN, FOR ALL THE HARD WORK AND DEDICATION HE CONTINUOUSLY PUTS FORTH AS A COUNCILMAN AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO HIM IN ALL OF HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5373 (Word version) -- Rep. Townsend: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE MRS. VELMA H. MAYER OF ANDERSON COUNTY ON THE REMARKABLE OCCASION OF HER ONE HUNDREDTH BIRTHDAY AND TO WISH HER CONTINUED GOOD HEALTH AND MUCH HAPPINESS IN THE YEARS TO COME.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 5374 (Word version) -- Rep. G. R. Smith: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE CLYDE AND ELEANOR BROOKS OF FOUNTAIN INN ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR FIFTIETH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY ON JUNE 5, 2004, AND TO WISH THEM MANY YEARS OF CONTINUED HAPPINESS TOGETHER.

The Resolution was adopted.

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 1264 (Word version) -- Senator Jackson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE ST. MARTIN DE PORRES CATHOLIC SCHOOL IN COLUMBIA FOR BEING ONE OF THE MOST OUTSTANDING SCHOOLS IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO COMMEND THEM FOR THEIR EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION AND FOR DEVELOPING THE YOUNG MINDS OF PREDOMINANTLY AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS.

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

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 1270 (Word version) -- Senator Elliott: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND CHIEF HAROLD D. HATCHER, CHIEF OF THE WACCAMAW INDIAN PEOPLE OF CONWAY, SOUTH CAROLINA, FOR HIS OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE STATE RECOGNITION OF NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN ENTITIES AND HIS LEADERSHIP IN BRINGING THE CONCERNS AND ISSUES OF ALL NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

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

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

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Battle                 Bingham                Bowers
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Hagood
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Keegan                 Kennedy                Kirsh
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Stille                 Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Wednesday, May 26.

Creighton Coleman                 Bessie Moody-Lawrence
Marty Coates                      Joe Brown
G. Murrell Smith                  Todd Rutherford
H.B. "Chip" Limehouse             Fletcher Smith
Doug Smith                        Joseph Neal
Jerry Govan                       Alex Harvin
Douglas Jennings                  Seth Whipper
Richard Quinn

Announcement was made that Dr. Kenneth F. Hill of Union is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.

Rep. COTTY presented to the House Mrs. Linda Winburn from Summit Parkway Middle School, the 2004-2005 Teacher of the Year.

Rep. G. R. SMITH presented to the House the Hillcrest High School "Lady Rams" Softball Team, the 2004 Class AAAA Champions, their coaches and other school officials.

Reps. WILKINS and TRIPP presented to the House the Mauldin High School Boys Baseball Team, the 2004 Class AAAA Champions, their coaches and other school officials.

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R324) S. 1213 (Word version) -- Senators Knotts, Setzler, Courson and Cromer: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 1201 OF 1968, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE LEXINGTON COUNTY RECREATION COMMISSION, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROHIBITION THAT A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT SERVE MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS.

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:

Frye                   Koon                   McLeod
Toole

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

H. 5358 (Word version) -- Reps. Bailey, Chellis, Harrell and Young: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1627 OF 1972, RELATING TO THE DORCHESTER COUNTY VOCATIONAL EDUCATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE NINE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND PROVIDE THAT A MEMBER OF A SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES MAY NOT SERVE ON THE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION BOARD.

S. 682 (Word version) -- Senator Jackson: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 58, TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF MORTGAGE LOAN BROKERS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE TERM FROM "MORTGAGE LOAN BROKER" TO "MORTGAGE BROKER", TO CONFORM THE CHAPTER ACCORDINGLY, TO DEFINE "PROCESSOR", TO FURTHER SPECIFY THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY OF "ORIGINATORS", AND AMONG OTHER THINGS TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSURE AND RENEWAL FEES FOR ORIGINATORS.

Rep. SCARBOROUGH explained the Bill.

The following Bills and Joint Resolution were read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title of each be changed to that of an Act, and that they be enrolled for ratification:

S. 1195 (Word version) -- Education Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, RELATING TO HIGHER EDUCATION EXCELLENCE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 2904, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

S. 668 (Word version) -- Senator Ritchie: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-5-15, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A BANK OR SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, UPON DEPOSIT OF FUNDS BY A MUNICIPALITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL DISTRICT, OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, OR A COUNTY TREASURER, TO SECURE THE DEPOSITS BY DEPOSIT INSURANCE, SURETY BONDS, COLLATERAL SECURITIES, OR LETTERS OF CREDIT TO PROTECT THE LOCAL ENTITY AGAINST LOSS, AND TO PROVIDE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURING DEPOSITS THAT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.

S. 1146 (Word version) -- Senator Peeler: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 61, TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE, SO AS TO DEFINE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL TERMS, CHANGE THE PROCEDURE FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF A LICENSE OR A PERMIT, PROVIDE CERTAIN ACTS FOR WHICH A SERVICE MAY BE FINED, PROVIDE CERTAIN CRIMES THAT IF COMMITTED REQUIRE THE DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION, PROVIDE INSTANCES OF MISCONDUCT AND THE SUSPENSION OF A CERTIFICATE PENDING INVESTIGATION OF A COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT, PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION, CHANGE REFERENCES TO REGULATIONS, PROVIDE FOR CONFIDENTIALITY OF PATIENT CARE RECORDS, CLARIFY LANGUAGE, AND REVISE REFERENCES.

S. 1043 (Word version) -- Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 31-12-100, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DISSOLUTION OF A MILITARY FACILITIES REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN ADOPTED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCE OBLIGATIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THE PLAN REMAIN IN PLACE UPON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE AUTHORITY UNTIL ADOPTION OF A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE FINALLY DISSOLVING THE TAX ALLOCATION FUND AND TERMINATING THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; TO AMEND SECTION 31-12-210, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS FOR A MILITARY FACILITIES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BY A MUNICIPALITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE OBLIGATIONS MAY BE ISSUED WITHIN FIFTEEN YEARS OF THE MUNICIPALITY'S CONCURRENCE IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; TO AMEND SECTION 31-12-270, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE BY A MUNICIPALITY CONCURRING IN THE MILITARY FACILITIES REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE TIME PERIOD BY WHICH AN ORDINANCE MUST BE ADOPTED IN WHICH THE TAX ALLOCATION FUND IS DISSOLVED AND THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA'S DESIGNATION IS TERMINATED; TO AMEND SECTION 31-12-290, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE TAX ALLOCATION FUND AND THE CARRY FORWARD OF UNEXPENDED FUNDS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FUNDS CARRIED FORWARD MAY BE USED ON MILITARY FACILITIES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COSTS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 31-12-300, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE TOTAL INITIAL EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN A MILITARY FACILITIES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR TIME PERIODS BY WHICH THE VALUE MUST BE DETERMINED AND TO REQUIRE COOPERATION AMONG OFFICIALS IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION.

The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments:

S. 848 (Word version) -- Senators Verdin and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-170, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THESE VEHICLES ARE ALLOWED TO USE AND DISPLAY ANY BLUE LIGHTS OR RED LIGHTS; TO DEFINE THE TERM "DISPLAY", AND TO PROVIDE THAT ONLY CERTAIN AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLES MAY DISPLAY THE WORD "POLICE".

S. 897 (Word version) -- Senator Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-9-55 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY CHANGES ADOPTED TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA BUILDING CODE BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA BUILDING CODE COUNCIL ARE DEEMED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SOUTH CAROLINA BUILDING CODE AND DO NOT HAVE TO BE READOPTED IN SUBSEQUENT CODE CYCLES.

S. 821 (Word version) -- Senators Short and Moore: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING A NEW SECTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO ISSUE A SPECIAL COMMEMORATIVE 'BREAST CANCER AWARENESS' MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE, TO REQUIRE A FEE OF THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS ABOVE THAT REQUIRED FOR A STANDARD LICENSE PLATE AND TO REQUIRE THOSE FUNDS BE USED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO EXPAND SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE BEST CHANCE NETWORK.

S. 1103 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler, Hayes and Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-8600, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF DUCKS UNLIMITED SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS LICENSE PLATE MAY BE ISSUED TO ANY OWNER OF CERTAIN PRIVATE PASSENGER CARRYING MOTOR VEHICLES, AND TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL FEE FOR THE ISSUANCE ON THE LICENSE PLATE THAT MUST BE DEPOSITED IN AN ACCOUNT DESIGNATED BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DUCKS UNLIMITED.

S. 935 (Word version) -- Senator Hawkins: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-2265 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT, WHEN A PROVISION OF LAW OR REGULATION PROVIDES FOR A CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECK IN CONNECTION WITH LICENSING, PLACEMENT, SERVICE AS A VOLUNTEER, OR EMPLOYMENT WITH A CHILD WELFARE AGENCY, THE PROVISION OF LAW OR REGULATION MAY NOT OPERATE TO PROHIBIT THESE ACTIONS WHEN A CONVICTION OR PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE HAS BEEN PARDONED AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS; BY ADDING SECTION 24-21-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES BOARD SHALL MAKE ITS ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS AVAILABLE TO A VICTIM OF A CRIME BEFORE IT CONDUCTS A PAROLE HEARING FOR THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1642, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT OF A CHILD WITH CERTAIN PERSONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE PLACEMENT IS AUTHORIZED WHEN THE CONVICTION OR PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE OF CERTAIN CRIMES IS PARDONED AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2725, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYING CERTAIN PERSONS AT A CHILDCARE CENTER, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT OR PROVISION CAREGIVER SERVICES WHEN A CONVICTION OR PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE OF CERTAIN CRIMES HAS BEEN PARDONED AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2730, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LICENSING OF A CHILDCARE CENTER OR GROUP CHILDCARE HOME, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT LICENSING WHEN A CONVICTION OR PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE FOR CERTAIN CRIMES HAS BEEN PARDONED AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2740, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RENEWAL OF LICENSING A CHILDCARE CENTER OR GROUP CHILDCARE CENTER, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT RENEWAL WHEN A CONVICTION OR PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE FOR CERTAIN CRIMES HAS BEEN PARDONED AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2800, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE APPLICATION FOR A STATEMENT OF STANDARD CONFORMITY OR APPROVAL FOR THE OPERATION OF A PUBLIC CHILDCARE CENTER OR GROUP CHILDCARE HOME, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT APPROVAL WHEN A CONVICTION OR PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE FOR CERTAIN CRIMES HAS BEEN PARDONED AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2810, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RENEWAL OF THE APPROVAL FOR THE OPERATION OF A PUBLIC CHILDCARE CENTER OR GROUP CHILDCARE HOME, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE RENEWAL WHEN A CONVICTION OR PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE FOR CERTAIN CRIMES HAS BEEN PARDONED AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2850, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REGISTRATION OF AN OPERATOR OF A FAMILY CHILDCARE HOME, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT OPERATE TO PROHIBIT REGISTRATION OR RENEWAL WHEN A CONVICTION OR PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE FOR CERTAIN CRIMES HAS BEEN PARDONED AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2900, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION OF A CHILDCARE CENTER OR GROUP CHILDCARE HOME OPERATED BY A CHURCH OR RELIGIOUS COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT LICENSING, REGISTRATION, OR RENEWAL OF A LICENSE OR REGISTRATION WHEN A CONVICTION OR PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE FOR CERTAIN CRIMES HAS BEEN PARDONED AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-3097, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT, BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES EMPLOYS A PERSON IN ITS CHILDCARE LICENSING OR CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES DIVISIONS, THE PERSON SHALL UNDERGO A STATE FINGERPRINT REVIEW TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT WHEN A CONVICTION OR PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE FOR CERTAIN CRIMES HAS BEEN PARDONED AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 24-3-550, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO WITNESSES AT AN EXECUTION, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A FORMER SOLICITOR TO BE PRESENT AT THE EXECUTION; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PAROLE BOARD MEETINGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD SHALL CONDUCT ALL PAROLE HEARINGS IN CASES THAT RELATE TO A SINGLE VICTIM ON THE SAME DAY AND TO PROVIDE THAT, UPON THE REQUEST OF A VICTIM, THE BOARD MAY ALLOW THE VICTIM AND AN OFFENDER TO APPEAR SIMULTANEOUSLY BEFORE THE BOARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING TESTIMONY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-710, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO FILM, VIDEOTAPE, OR OTHER ELECTRONIC INFORMATION THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE PAROLE BOARD WHEN IT MAKES A PAROLE DETERMINATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD SHALL MAINTAIN AND ALLOW CRIME VICTIMS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD DURING PAROLE HEARINGS VIA A TWO-WAY CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM.

The following Joint Resolution was taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate:

H. 5341 (Word version) -- Education and Public Works Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE LIBRARY, RELATING TO CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIANS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 2899, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Rep. J. E. SMITH moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 27, which was adopted:

H. 5210 (Word version) -- Reps. Bales, J. Brown, Cotty, Howard, Lourie, J. H. Neal, Rutherford, Scott and J. E. Smith: A BILL TO ENACT THE RICHLAND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF ACT BY ALLOWING THE IMPOSITION OF A SALES AND USE TAX EQUAL TO ONE PERCENT OF GROSS SALES IN RICHLAND COUNTY FOLLOWING APPROVAL OF THE TAX BY THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE COUNTY IN A REFERENDUM HELD AT THE TIME OF THE 2004 GENERAL ELECTION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAX IS IMPOSED FOR SEVEN YEARS AND MAY BE EXTENDED OR REIMPOSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY LAW, TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAX IS IMPOSED IN THE SAME MANNER AND WITH THE SAME EXEMPTIONS AND MAXIMUM TAXES APPLICABLE FOR THE FIVE PERCENT STATE SALES AND USE TAX WITH AN ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION FROM THE ONE PERCENT TAX FOR FOOD WHICH LAWFULLY MAY BE PURCHASED WITH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD COUPONS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE REVENUE OF THE TAX MUST BE ALLOTTED TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF RICHLAND COUNTY BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY NUMBER OF STUDENTS RESIDING IN THAT PORTION OF THE DISTRICT THAT IS IN RICHLAND COUNTY AND ALSO BASED ON THE POPULATION OF THE DISTRICT, TO PROVIDE THAT THE REVENUE MUST BE USED TO PROVIDE A CREDIT AGAINST THE SCHOOL TAX LIABILITY FOR PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT AND TO PROVIDE THE METHOD OF CALCULATING THE CREDIT, AND TO PROVIDE THAT REFERENDUMS TO APPROVE MILLAGE INCREASES OR BOND AUTHORIZATIONS FOR ANY PURPOSE IN RICHLAND COUNTY MAY ONLY BE HELD ON THE FIRST TUESDAY WHICH FOLLOWS THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER OF A PARTICULAR YEAR.

The following Bill was taken up:

S. 792 (Word version) -- Senator Rankin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-47-65, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF THE CMRS EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SO AS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF TERMS A COMMITTEE MEMBER MAY BE APPOINTED TO SERVE, AND TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH THE COMMITTEE MAY EXIST.

The Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\ 21280SD04):
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by inserting PART I before SECTION 1;
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, by adding the following new parts and sections to be appropriately numbered to read:

/   SECTION   ____.   Section 58-9-280(I) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 354 of 1996, is further amended to read:

"(I)   The incumbent LECs subject to this section shall must be authorized to meet the offerings of any local exchange carrier serving the same area by packaging services together, using volume discounts and term discounts, and by offering individual contracts for services, except as restricted by federal law. Individual contracts for services or contracts with other providers of telecommunications services shall must not be filed with the commission, except as required by federal law, provided that telecommunications carriers that have not elected to have rates, terms, and conditions determined pursuant to the plan described in Section 58-9-576(B) or that are not operating under an alternative means of regulation pursuant to section 58-9-575, 58-9-577, or 58-9-585, shall must provide access to such these contracts to the commission as required."
SECTION   _____.   Section 58-9-576(A) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 354 of 1996, is amended to read:

"(A)   Any LEC may elect to have rates, terms, and conditions determined pursuant to the plan described in subsection (B), provided the commission has approved a local interconnection agreement in which the LEC is a participant with an entity determined by the commission not to be affiliated with the LEC or the commission determines that another provider's service competes with the LECs basic local exchange telephone service, or the LEC is a 'small local exchange carrier' as defined in Section 58-9-10(14)."
SECTION   _____.   Section 58-9-576(B)(5) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 354 of 1996, is amended to read:

"(5)   The LECs shall set rates for all other services on a basis that does not unreasonably discriminate between similarly situated customers; provided, however, that. All such of these rates are subject to a complaint process for abuse of market position in accordance with guidelines to be adopted by the commission. The commission shall resolve any such complaint within one hundred twenty days of the date it is filed with the commission. As used in this section, 'abuse of market position' means any anticompetitive pricing action that prohibits an equally efficient new firm from entering a market or that would cause an equally efficient firm to exit a market."
SECTION   _____.   Chapter 9, Title 58 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 58-9-285.   (A)   As used in this section:

(1)   'qualifying LEC' means any LEC operating under an alternative means of regulation pursuant to Section 58-9-575; any LEC that has elected to have rates, terms, and conditions for its services determined pursuant to the plan described in Section 58-9-576(B); and any LEC that has elected to have rates, terms, and conditions determined pursuant alternative means of regulation under Section 58-9-577;

(2)   'qualifying IXC' means any interexchange carrier operating under alternative means of regulation pursuant to Section 58-9-585;

(3)   'bundled offering' means:

(a)   for a qualifying LEC, an offering of two or more products or services to customers at a single price provided that:

(i)     each regulated product or service in the offering is available on a stand-alone basis under a tariff on file with the commission; and

(ii)   the qualifying LEC has a tariffed flat-rated local exchange service offering for residential customers and for single-line business customers on file with the commission that provides access to the services and functionalities set forth in Section 58-9-10(9).

(b)   for a qualifying IXC, an offering of two or more products or services to customers at a single price provided that each regulated product or service in the offering is available on a stand-alone basis under a tariff on file with the commission.

(4)   'Contract offering' means any contractual agreement by which a qualifying LEC or a qualifying IXC offers any tariffed product or service to any customer at rates, terms, and conditions that differ from those set forth in the qualfying LECs or qualifying IXCs tariffs.

(B)   The commission shall not:

(1)   impose any requirements related to the terms, conditions, rates, or availability of any bundled offering or contract offering of any qualifying LEC or qualifying IXC; or

(2)   otherwise regulate any bundled offering or contract offering of any qualifying LEC or qualifying IXC. Without limiting the foregoing, purchasers of bundled offerings and contract offerings may submit complaints regarding such offerings to the commission, and the commission may provide a copy of such complaint to the qualifying LEC or qualifying IXC referenced in the complaint. The commission may endeavor to facilitate a voluntary and mutually-acceptable resolution of such complaints.

(C)   A qualifying LEC or qualifying IXC providing bundled offerings or contract offerings is obligated to provide contributions to the Universal Service Fund (USF), and the commission shall ensure that contributions to the state USF, pursuant to Section 58-9-280(E) must be maintained at appropriate levels.

(D)   Access minutes of use must continue to be classified and reported for purposes of administering the Interim LEC Fund, pursuant to Section 58-9-280(M), in the same manner as they were classified and reported before the effective date of this subsection (d).

(E)   Nothing in this section affects any jurisdiction conferred upon the commission by 47 U.S.C. Section 254(k).

(F)   Nothing in this section affects the commission's jurisdiction over complaints alleging that a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telecommunications service was made without appropriate authorization."

SECTION   ____.   The General Assembly finds that there are important public benefits to be gained by increasing the stability and predictability of rates charged by natural gas distribution utilities in South Carolina. These utilities purchase natural gas from interstate and intrastate suppliers and deliver it to customers through the local distribution systems that they own and operate. The prices charged by these utilities are already subject to routine adjustments for changes in the prices of natural gas suppliers. Those changes in price are passed through to customers annually, with appropriate review by the South Carolina Public Service Commission, in purchased gas adjustment proceedings.

There is, however, no similar means for the predictable and routine adjustment of these utilities' other rate components. These components reflect the utilities' current levels of investment, revenue, and expense. Changing these cost and revenue items requires filing comprehensive rate proceedings. These proceedings are both expensive and time consuming and their costs are ultimately borne by the customers of the utilities through rates and by the people of this State through the budgets of the Public Service Commission and Department of Consumer Affairs.

Furthermore, in an effort to avoid or postpone rate proceedings, utilities may forego or delay investments in beneficial expansions or improvements of utility infrastructure. In addition, because of the expense and complexity of these proceedings, utilities often delay filing them until the required rate increase is substantial, and the need for the increase cannot be delayed any longer. As a result, such filings often come at irregular intervals, reflect large one-time rate increases, and are difficult to postpone even in periods of economic downturn.

For these reasons, proceedings under existing provisions of law tend to create more perceived economic hardship for consumers and engender more public controversy than would smaller and more regular rate adjustments spread over a number of years.

Natural gas distribution utilities are especially well-suited to a more streamlined and predictable ratemaking mechanism that would allow for routine adjustments in rate components. Natural gas distribution utilities generally experience steady and predictable changes in cost as distribution facilities are added to serve a growing customer base.

The General Assembly has determined that the best interests of the State support establishing a mechanism for the regular and periodic adjustment of the base rates of natural gas distribution utilities, and for natural gas distribution utilities only. These adjustments shall take place under procedural safeguards which fully preserve the power of the Public Service Commission to conduct comprehensive rate proceedings whenever it determines doing so to be in the public interest.

The General Assembly is providing the state's natural gas consumers and its gas utilities with an efficient rate setting mechanism that will allow for more periodic yet generally smaller rate adjustments. It encourages investment in new, updated, and expanded gas infrastructure, thereby encouraging additional economic development in the State. It also dramatically reduces the costs of proceedings to adjust gas rates and thereby reduces costs for consumers and the public.
SECTION   _____.   Chapter 5 of Title 58 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 58-5-400.   This article may be cited as the 'Natural Gas Adjustment Act'.

Section 58-5-410.   A public utility providing natural gas distribution service, in its discretion and at anytime, may elect to have the terms of this article apply to its rates and charges for gas distribution service, on a prospective basis, by filing a notice of the election with the commission. Upon receipt of notice of the election, the commission shall proceed to make the findings and establish the ongoing procedures required for adjustments in base rates to be made under this article. In carrying out the procedures established by this article with respect to such an election, the commission shall rely upon and utilize the approved rates, charges, revenues, expenses, capital structure, return, and other matters established in the public utility's most recent general rate proceeding pursuant to Section 58-5-240; provided, however, that the most recent such order must have been issued no more than five years prior to the initial election to come under the terms of this article. A public utility may combine an election under this article with the filing of a rate proceeding pursuant to Section 58-5-240 and the commission shall include the findings required by this article in its rate orders issued in the Section 58-5-240 proceedings, and the election shall remain in effect until the next general rate proceeding.

Section 58-5-415.   The election by a utility to have the terms of this article apply to its rates and charges for gas distribution service once made shall remain in effect until the next general rate proceeding for the public utility pursuant to Section 58-5-240 at which time the public utility may then elect to continue the applicability of this article to its rates and charges or elect to opt out of the provisions of this article. The applicant may withdraw its request to come under the terms of this article at any time before the entry of a final order of the commission on the merits of proceeding in which the election is made or on a petition for rehearing in the proceeding.

Section 58-5-420.   In issuing its order pursuant to Section 58-5-410, and in addition to the other requirements of Section 58-5-240, if a proceeding pursuant to that section is required:

(1)   the commission shall specify a range for the utility's cost of equity that includes a band of fifty basis points (0.50 percentage points) below and fifty basis points (0.50 percentage points) above the cost of equity on which rates have been set;

(2)   the commission separately shall state the amount of the utility's net plant in service, construction work in progress, accumulated deferred income taxes, inventory, working capital, and other rate base components. It shall also state the utility's depreciation expense, operating and maintenance expense, income taxes, taxes other than income taxes, and other components of income for return, and its revenues, its capital structure, cost of debt, and overall cost of capital and earned return on common equity. The figures stated shall be those which the commission has determined to be the appropriate basis on which rates were set in the applicable orders.

Section 58-5-430.   The utility shall file with the commission monitoring reports for each twelve-month period ending on March thirty-first, June thirtieth, September thirtieth, and December thirty-first of each year, the filings to be made no later than the fifteenth day of the third month following the close of the period. These quarterly monitoring reports shall include the information set forth in Section 58-5-430. The quarterly monitoring reports required by this article shall show or include the following:

(1)   the utility's actual net plant in service, construction work in progress, accumulated deferred income taxes, inventory, working capital, and other rate base components. The report shall also show the utility's depreciation expense, operating and maintenance expense, income taxes, taxes other than income taxes, and other components of income for return, and its revenues, and its capital structure, cost of debt, overall cost of capital, and earned return on common equity;

(2)   all applicable accounting and pro-forma adjustments historically permitted or required by the commission for the utility in question, or for similarly situated utilities, or authorized by general principles of utility accounting, or authorized by accounting letters or orders issued by the commission. This authorization may occur either in a general rate hearing or in any other type of filing or hearing that the commission considers appropriate. However, other parties shall be given sufficient opportunity to review and provide comments on any proposed accounting letter or order issued after the initial order allowing future base rate adjustments pursuant to this article;

(3)   pro-forma adjustments to annualize for the twelve-month period any rate adjustments imposed pursuant to this article or other events affecting only part of the period covered by the filing so that the annualization is required to show the effects of those events on the utility's earnings going forward;

(4)   pro-forma or other adjustments are required to properly account for atypical, unusual, or nonrecurring events.

Section 58-5-440.   In the monitoring report filed for the twelve-month period ending March thirty-first of each year, the utility shall provide additional schedules indicating the following revenue calculations:

(1)   if the utility's earnings exceed the upper end of the range established in the order, the utility shall calculate the reduction in revenue required to lower its return on equity to the midpoint of the range established in the order;

(2)   if the utility's earnings are below the lower range established in the order, the utility shall calculate the additional revenue required to increase its return on equity to the mid point of the range established by the order.

The utility also shall provide a schedule that specifies changes in its tariff rates required to achieve any indicated change in revenue.

The proposed rate changes, filed by the utility, shall conform as nearly as is practicable with the revenue allocation principles contained in the most recent rate order.

Section 58-5-450.   The commission shall review the monitoring report filed pursuant to Section 58-5-440 to determine compliance with its terms taking into account any adjustments the commission determines to be required to bring the report into compliance with Section 58-5-440, and based upon the findings of any audit conducted by the office of regulatory staff concerning compliance with Section 58-5-440, the commission shall order the utility to make the adjustments to tariff rates necessary to achieve the revenue levels indicated in Section 58-5-440.

Section 58-5-455.   The procedures contained in this section shall apply to monitoring reports related to the quarter ending March thirty-first.

(1)   The utility shall file the monitoring reports with the commission on or before June fifteenth and simultaneously shall mail or electronically transmit copies to any interested parties who have requested in writing to receive them.

(2)   Interested parties shall be allowed until July fifteenth to file comments in writing to the commission and the office of regulatory staff concerning the monitoring report.

(3)   In cases where the monitoring report indicates rate adjustments are required, or where it otherwise appears to the commission that an adjustment in rates may be warranted under this article, the office of regulatory staff shall conduct an audit of the monitoring report and specify any changes that staff determines to be necessary to correct errors in the report or to otherwise bring the report into compliance with this article. The office of regulatory staff audit reports shall be provided to the commission, the utility and made available to all interested parties no later than September first.

(4)   Interested parties shall be allowed until September fifteenth to file written comments with the commission and the office of regulatory staff related to the staff's audit report and shall simultaneously mail or electronically transmit copies of these comments to the utility and to all parties who previously appeared and filed comments.

(5)   On or before October fifteenth the commission shall issue an order setting forth any changes required in the utility's request to adjust rates under this article. In the absence of such an order, the gas rate adjustment contained in the utility's filing shall be deemed to be granted as filed.

(6)   Any gas rate adjustments authorized under the terms of this article shall take effect for all bills rendered on or after the first billing cycle of November of that year.

Section 58-5-460.   Within thirty days of the issuance of an order pursuant to Section 58-5-450, or within thirty days of the failure by the commission to issue an order as required pursuant to Section 58-5-450, any aggrieved party may petition the commission for review of the order or failure to issue an order and all interested parties of record shall have a right to be heard at an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

Section 58-5-465.   After conducting the hearing required by Section 58-5-460, the commission shall issue an order that:

(1)   sets forth any changes that are required to the rates approved in the initial order issued under Section 58-5-455(5);

(2)   determines the amount of any over or under collection by the utility that resulted from collection of the rates authorized in the initial order as compared to the rates authorized in the order issued under this section;

(3)   establishes a credit to refund the amount of any over collection, or a surcharge to collect the amount of any under collection, and requires the utility to apply the credit or surcharge until such time as the over or under collection is exhausted.

The commission shall issue any order required under this section by February fifteenth of the year following the year in which the monitoring report was filed. The order shall make the corrected rates and the credit or surcharge, if any, effective as of the first billing cycle of March of that year.

The provisions of Sections 58-5-330 and 58-5-340 concerning rehearing and appeal shall apply to the orders issued pursuant to this section.
Section 58-5-470.   The review of initial orders pursuant to Sections 58-5-460 and 58-5-465 is limited to issues related to compliance with the terms of this article. Matters determined in orders issued pursuant to Section 58-5-420 are not subject to review except in full rate proceedings pursuant to Section 58-5-240. Any proceedings pursuant to this article are without prejudice to the right of the commission to issue or any interested party to request issuance of a rule to show cause why a full rate proceeding should not be initiated, nor does this article limit the right of a utility to file an application pursuant to Section 58-5-240 for an adjustment to its rates and charges, nor does it impose the restrictions on filings contained in Section 58-5-240(F)."

SECTION   _____.   Chapter 9, Title 58 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section   58-9-295.   (A)   No telecommunications service provider or any parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate of such a provider shall enter into any contract, agreement, or arrangement, oral or written, with any person or entity that does any of the following:

(1)   requires such person or entity to restrict or limit the ability of any other telecommunications service provider from obtaining easements or rights-of-way for the installation of facilities or equipment to provide telecommunications services in this State or otherwise deny or restrict access to the real property by any other telecommunications service provider; or

(2)   offers or grants incentives or rewards to an owner of real property or the owner's agent that are contingent upon the provision of telecommunications service on the premises by a single telecommunications service provider.

(B)   Nothing in this section prohibits a user or prospective user of telecommunications service from entering into a lawful agreement with a telecommunications service provider with respect to the user or prospective user's own telecommunications service.

(C)   Nothing in this section shall prohibit an entity described in subsection (A) of this section from entering into any contract, agreement, or arrangement, oral or written, by which an owner of real property or the owner's agent agrees to encourage users or prospective users of telecommunications service to select a particular telecommunications service provider. However, the contract, agreement, or arrangement may not restrict or limit the ability of any other telecommunications service provider from obtaining easements or rights-of-way for the installation of facilities or equipment to provide telecommunications services in this State and also may not require the owner or the owner's agent to refuse or restrict access to the real property by any other telecommunications service provider. All contracts, agreements, or arrangements made on or after the effective date of this section are void and unenforceable.

If the owner of real property or the owner's agent refuses access to another telecommunications service provider, then the telecommunications service provider that owns the telecommunications facility on such real property shall be required to offer the requesting telecommunications carrier consistent with state and federal law:

(1)   interconnection;

(2)   unbundled network elements; and

(3)   resale at wholesale rates any telecommunications service that the carrier provides at retail to subscribers who are not telecommunications carriers.

(D)   Any telecommunications service provider who violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to penalties as set forth in Article 13, Chapter 9 of Title 58.

(E)   Contracts, agreements, and arrangements subject to this section may be obtained by the Office of Regulatory Staff pursuant to Sections 58-4-50 and 58-4-55.

(F)   For purposes of this section, 'telecommunications service provider' means a telephone utility as defined in Section 58-9-10(6), a government-owned telecommunications provider as defined in Section 58-9-2610(1), and a telephone cooperative as defined in Section 33-46-20(4)."   /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, by adding PART V immediately before the last SECTION of the bill containing the effective date.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. CATO explained the amendment.

Reps. MACK, LLOYD, MCCRAW, J. BROWN, BREELAND, CATO, CHELLIS, SCARBOROUGH, MOODY-LAWRENCE, J. R. SMITH, CLEMMONS, EMORY, J. M. NEAL, SCOTT and W. D. SMITH requested debate on the Bill.

The following Bill was taken up:

S. 686 (Word version) -- Senators Thomas and Alexander: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 2 TO CHAPTER 73, TITLE 38 SO AS TO ENACT THE "PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE PERSONAL LINES MODERNIZATION ACT"; TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-910, RELATING TO CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH INSURANCE PREMIUMS MAY BE RAISED, SO AS TO DELETE FIRE, ALLIED LINES, AND HOMEOWNERS' INSURANCE FROM THIS REQUIREMENT, AND TO DELETE A PROVISION AUTHORIZING A PRIVATE INSURER TO UNDERWRITE CERTAIN ESSENTIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE AND TO FILE FOR RATE INCREASE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

The Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\DKA\ 3943DW04), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/ SECTION   1.   Chapter 73, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Property and Casualty Insurance Personal Lines Modernization Act

Section 38-73-210.   This article is known as the Property and Casualty Insurance Personal Lines Modernization Act and applies only to personal lines insurance.

Section 38-73-220.   (A)   Except as provided in subsection (B), overall average rate level increases or decreases, for all coverages combined, of seven percent above or below the insurer's rates then in effect may take effect without prior approval on a file and use basis with respect to rates for fire, allied lines, and homeowner's insurance policies. The seven percent cap does not apply on an individual insured basis.

(B)   Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, for any policies governed by this section, filings that produce rate level changes within the limitation specified in subsection (A) become effective without prior approval. No more than two rate increases within the limitation specified in subsection (A) may be implemented during any twelve-month period and the second rate increase filing in the twelve-month period is subject to prior approval.

(C)   A rate increase or decrease falling within the limitation in subsection (B) may become effective not less than thirty days after the date of the filing with the director. The filing is considered to meet the requirements of this article. If the director finds that this filing is not in compliance with this article, he shall issue a written order specifying in detail the provisions with which the insurer has not complied and state a reasonable period in which the filing is considered no longer effective. An order by the director pursuant to this section that is issued more than thirty days from the date on which the director received the rate filing is on a prospective basis only and does not affect any contract issued or made before the effective date of the order.

(D)   Rate filings falling outside the limitation specified in subsection (B) are subject to the prior approval of the director. The director shall approve or disapprove these filings in accordance with the provisions of Sections 38-73-960 and 38-73-990.

Section 38-73-230.   (A)   The director may declare a line of insurance competitive by providing public notice on the department website and in major newspapers in South Carolina of the intention of declaring a market competitive in sixty days. A separate notice must be sent to the Consumer Advocate. A report that provides the support for that declaration must be available upon request and posted on the department's website. A party may send a request to the department requesting a public hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division. If a public hearing is requested, the department shall cooperate in establishing a hearing.

(B)   The following factors must be considered by the director for purposes of determining if a reasonable degree of competition exists in a particular line of insurance:

(1)   the number of insurers or groups of affiliated insurers providing coverage in the market;

(2)   measures of market concentration and changes of market concentration over time;

(3)   ease of entry and the existence of financial or economic barriers that could prevent new firms from entering the market;

(4)   the extent to which any insurer or group of affiliated insurers controls all or a portion of the market;

(5)   whether the total number of companies writing the line of insurance in this State is sufficient to provide multiple options;

(6)   the availability of insurance coverage to consumers in the markets by specific geographic area, by line of insurance and by class of risk; and

(7)   the opportunities available to consumers in the market to acquire pricing and other consumer information.

Each factor must indicate a competitive market in order for a determination that there is a competitive market to be made.

(C)   The director shall monitor the degree and continued existence of competition in this State on an on-going basis. The director may utilize existing relevant information, analytical systems, and other sources, or rely on a combination of them. Activities may be conducted internally within the insurance department, in cooperation with other state insurance departments, through outside contractors, or in any other appropriate manner.

(D)   An affected person or organization may make a written request to the director or his designee to initiate a hearing to determine whether a particular line of insurance continues to be competitive. The request for hearing must specify the grounds to be relied upon by the applicant. Within thirty days after the receipt of the request, the director or his designee shall transmit the request for hearing to the Administrative Law Judge Division.

Section 38-73-240.   (A)   In a line of insurance declared competitive, each insurer shall file with the director all rates, supplementary rate information, and supporting information for competitive markets at least thirty days before the proposed effective date. The director or his designee may give written notice, within thirty days of the receipt of the filing, that additional time is needed, not to exceed thirty days from the date of the notice, to consider the filing. Upon written application of the insurer, the director or his designee may authorize rates to be effective before the expiration of the waiting period or an extension of it. A filing is considered to meet the requirements of this article and to become effective unless disapproved pursuant to this section by the director or his designee before the expiration of the waiting period or an extension of it. Residual market mechanisms or advisory organizations may file residual market rates.

(B)   The filing is considered in compliance with the filing provisions of this section unless the director or his designee informs the insurer within ten days after receipt of the filing as to what supplementary rate information or supporting information is required to complete the filing.

(C)   An insurer may file its rates by either filing its final rates or by filing a multiplier and, if applicable, an expense constant adjustment to be applied to prospective loss costs that have been filed by an advisory organization on behalf of the insurer as permitted by this chapter.

(D)   All rates, supplementary rate information, and any supporting information filed pursuant to this article is open to public inspection after the filing becomes effective.

(E)   With respect to applications for rate increases for fire, allied lines, and homeowner's insurance that exceed the seven percent cap as provided for in Section 38-73-260(A) and if an applicant insurer had earned premiums in this State in the previous calendar year of more than ten million dollars for the line or type of insurance for which the rate increase is sought, the director or his designee shall provide a copy of the filing to the Consumer Advocate or, in the alternative, shall direct the insurer to provide a copy simultaneously to the Consumer Advocate. Within ten business days of the receipt of the filing, the Consumer Advocate may request from the insurer additional information. A copy of the request must be served on the director or his designee. Within ten business days of the receipt of the information sought, the Consumer Advocate shall inform the insurer and the director if, in his opinion, the filing is not in compliance with this article and specify in detail the reason for his opinion. If the filing is accepted by the director and becomes effective, the Consumer Advocate, upon good cause shown, may request a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division. An order of the administrative law judge issued pursuant to the provisions of this section is on a prospective basis only and does not affect any contract issued or made before the effective date of the order.

Section 38-73-250.   (A)   If the director or his designee determines that competition does not exist in a line of insurance and issues a ruling to that effect pursuant to Section 38-73-230, the rates applicable to insurance sold in that market must be regulated pursuant to Section 38-73-260. The director may simply declare a line of insurance noncompetitive and release a report providing the support for that decision. The decision may be appealed to the Administrative Law Judge Division. The market is considered not competitive during the appeal process.

(B)   A rate filing in effect at the time the director or his designee determines that competition does not exist pursuant to Section 38-73-230 must be considered to be in compliance with the laws of this State unless disapproved pursuant to the procedures and rating standards contained in Section 38-73-260 applicable to noncompetitive markets.

(C)   An insurer having a rate filing in effect at the time the director determines that competition does not exist pursuant to Section 38-73-240 may be required to furnish supporting information within thirty days of a written request by the director or his designee.

Section 38-73-260.   (A)   Except as provided in subsection (B), overall average rate level increases or decreases, for all coverages combined, of seven percent above or below the insurer's rates then in effect may take effect without prior approval on a file and use basis with respect to rates for fire, allied lines, and homeowner's insurance policies. The seven percent cap does not apply on an individual insured basis.

(B)   Notwithstanding another provision of this article, for any policies governed by this section, filings that produce rate level changes within the limitation specified in subsection (A) become effective without prior approval. No more than two rate increases within the limitation specified in subsection (A) may be implemented during a twelve-month period and the second rate increase filing in the twelve-month period is subject to prior approval.

(C)   A rate increase or decrease falling within the limitation in subsection (B) may become effective not less than thirty days after the date of the filing with the director. The filing is considered to meet the requirements of this article. If the director finds that this filing is not in compliance with this article, he shall issue a written order specifying in detail the provisions with which the insurer has not complied and state a reasonable period in which the filing is considered no longer effective. An order by the director pursuant to this section that is issued more than thirty days from the date on which the director received the rate filing is on a prospective basis only and does not affect a contract issued or made before the effective date of the order.

(D)   Rate filings falling outside the limitation specified in subsection (B) are subject to the prior approval of the director or his designee. The director or his designee shall approve or disapprove these filings pursuant to the provisions of Sections 38-73-960 and 38-73-990.

(E)   With respect to applications for rate increases for fire, allied lines, and homeowner's insurance that exceed the seven percent cap as provided in subsection (A) and if an applicant insurer had earned premiums in this State in the previous calendar year of more than ten million dollars for the line or type of insurance for which the rate increase is sought, the director or his designee shall provide a copy of the filing to the Consumer Advocate or, in the alternative, shall direct the insurer to provide a copy simultaneously to the Consumer Advocate. Within ten business days of the receipt of the filing, the Consumer Advocate may request from the insurer additional information. A copy of the request must be served on the director or his designee. Within ten business days of the receipt of the information sought, the Consumer Advocate shall inform the insurer and the director if, in his opinion, the filing is not in compliance with this article and specify in detail the reason for his opinion. If the filing is accepted by the director and becomes effective, the Consumer Advocate, upon good cause shown, may request a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division. An order of the administrative law judge issued pursuant to the provisions of this section is on a prospective basis only and does not affect any contract issued or made before the effective date of the order.

Section 38-73-270.   The director shall utilize, develop, or cause to be developed, a consumer information system which provides and disseminates price and other relevant information on a readily available basis to purchasers of homeowners, private passenger nonfleet automobile, or property insurance for personal, family, or household needs. The director may utilize, develop, or cause to be developed, a consumer information system which provides and disseminates price and other relevant information on a readily available basis to purchasers of insurance for commercial risks and personal risks not otherwise specified. The activity may be conducted internally within the insurance department, in cooperation with other state insurance departments, through outside contractors, or in another appropriate manner. As necessary and appropriate, the director, insurers, advisory organizations, statistical agents, and other persons or organizations involved in conducting the business of insurance in this State, pursuant to the provisions of this article, shall cooperate in the development and utilization of a consumer information system."
SECTION   2.   A.   Chapter 75, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 38-75-1110.   (A)   The purposes of this article are to:

(1)   promote the public welfare by regulating insurance rates to the end that they may not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory and to authorize and regulate cooperative action among insurers in ratemaking and in other matters within the scope of this chapter; and

(2)   empower the director or his designee to review and evaluate natural hazard catastrophe models that are used in rate filings.

(B)   Nothing in this chapter is intended to prohibit or discourage reasonable competition.

Section 38-75-1120.   (A)   The director or his designee shall issue a report by February 1, 2005, regarding cause of and potential solutions to coastal insurance issues.

(B)   The report must be provided to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate.

Section 38-75-1130.   (A)   This article applies only to property insurance on risks located in this State.

(B)   This article does not apply to automobile insurance nor to insurance against liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles. The director or his designee may exempt from this article various specialty lines of insurance.

Section 38-75-1140.   (A)   In recognition of the use of natural hazard catastrophe computer models and other recently developed or improved actuarial methodologies for projecting natural hazard losses, the director or his designee may make or cause to be made an evaluation of any natural hazard catastrophe model used in property rate filings in this State. Natural hazard catastrophe models are computer programs that estimate losses from potential natural hazard disasters, combining data on property exposures with information on natural hazards, such as storms or earthquakes, to generate estimates of potential losses.

(B)   If required to do so by the director, a modeling organization that prepares catastrophe models used by insurers in rate filings in this State shall submit an initial report to the director or his designee consisting of but not limited to:

(1)   a statement of its qualification as a modeling organization;

(2)   an outline of the background and experience of the staff of the modeling organization engaged in the development and preparation of the catastrophe models used by insurers in rate filings; and

(3)   one or more statements describing and attesting to the validity of the model for use in predicting losses associated with natural hazard catastrophes in this State. A separate statement must be made by an individual possessing expertise appropriate to the hazard being modeled in fields such as meteorology, engineering, building codes, geology, and actuarial science as they apply to natural hazard catastrophes faced by this State.

(C)   The modeling organization shall submit a supplemental report to the director or his designee following any substantially material revision of the model if the revision is used by insurers in determining rates for this State. The supplemental report must specify the changes made to the catastrophe model and contain one or more statements by experts attesting to the continuing validity of the model for use in predicting losses associated with natural hazard catastrophes in this State.

(D)   If the director or his designee determines the expert statements provided to be insufficient, he may reject the report.

(E)   In conducting his evaluation of a model, the director or his designee may rely on the report of an official of another state who has made such an evaluation pursuant to the laws of that state.

(F)   Proprietary or trade secret information that is submitted in a report, or is obtained, developed, or compiled in the course of any evaluation must be kept confidential by the director.

Section 38-75-1150.   An insurer shall provide a separate premium for fire coverage and for allied lines coverage on a policy that includes fire and allied lines coverages. This includes a homeowner's and a businessowner's policy.

Section 38-75-1160. (A)(1)   A cancellation or refusal to renew by an insurer of a policy of insurance covered in this article is effective unless the insurer delivers or mails to the named insured at the address shown in the policy a written notice of the cancellation or refusal to renew. This notice must:

(a)   be approved as to form by the director or his designee before use;

(b)   state the date not less than thirty days after the date of the mailing or delivering on which the cancellation or refusal to renew becomes effective;

(c)   state the specific reason of the insurer for cancellation or refusal to renew and provide for the notification required by Section 38-75-1180(B).

(d)   inform the insured of his right to request in writing within fifteen days of the receipt of notice that the director review the action of the insurer. The notice of cancellation or refusal to renew must contain the following statement in bold print to inform the insured of this right:

'IMPORTANT NOTICE: Within fifteen days of receiving this notice, you or your attorney may request in writing that the director review this action to determine whether the insurer has complied with South Carolina laws in canceling or nonrenewing your policy. If this insurer has failed to comply with the cancellation or nonrenewal laws, the director may require that your policy be reinstated. However, the director is prohibited from making underwriting judgments. If this insurer has complied with the cancellation or nonrenewal laws, the director does not have the authority to overturn this action.';

(e)   inform the insured of the possible availability of other insurance which may be obtained through his agent, or through another insurer; and

(f)   state that the Department of Insurance has available a buyer's guide regarding property insurance shopping and availability, and provide applicable mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including a toll-free number, if available, for contacting the Department of Insurance.

(2)   Nothing in this subsection prohibits any insurer or agent from including in the notice of cancellation or refusal to renew, any additional disclosure statements required by state or federal laws, or any additional information relating to the availability of other insurance.

(B)   Subsection (A) does not apply if the:

(1)   insurer has manifested to the insured its willingness to renew by actually issuing or offering to the insured to issue a renewal policy, certificate, or other evidence of renewal, or has manifested this intention to the insured by another means;

(2)   named insured has demonstrated by some overt action to the insurer or its agent that he expressly intends that the policy be canceled or that it not be renewed.

Section 38-75-1170.   (A)   If an individual, after proper identification, submits a written request to an insurance-support organization for access to recorded personal information about the individual that reasonably is described by the individual and reasonably able to be located and retrieved by the insurance-support organization, the insurance-support organization, within thirty business days from the date the request is received shall:

(1)   inform the individual of the nature and substance of the recorded personal information in writing, by telephone, or by other oral communication, whichever the insurance-support organization prefers;

(2)   permit the individual to see and obtain a copy of the recorded personal information pertaining to him or to obtain a copy of the recorded personal information by mail, whichever the individual prefers, unless the recorded personal information is in coded form, in which case an accurate translation in plain language must be provided in writing;

(3)   disclose to the individual the identity, if recorded, of those persons to whom the insurance-support organization has disclosed the personal information within two years before the request, and if the identity is not recorded, the names of those insurance-support organizations or other persons to whom the information is disclosed in the regular course of business; and

(4)   provide the individual with a summary of the procedures by which he may request correction, amendment, or deletion of recorded personal information.

(B)   Personal information provided pursuant to subsection (A) must identify the source of the information if it is an institutional source.

(C)   Medical record information supplied by a medical care institution or medical professional and requested pursuant to the provisions of subsection (A), together with the identity of the medical professional or medical care institution that provided the information, must be supplied either directly to the individual or to a medical professional designated by the individual and licensed to provide medical care with respect to the condition to which the information relates, whichever the insurer, agent, or insurance-support organization prefers. If it elects to disclose the information to a medical professional designated by the individual, the insurer, agent, or insurance-support organization shall notify the individual, at the time of the disclosure, that it has provided the information to the medical professional.

(D)   Except for personal information provided by this section, an insurer, agent, or insurance-support organization may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs incurred in providing a copy of recorded personal information to individuals.

(E)   The obligations imposed by this section upon an insurer or agent may be satisfied by another insurer or agent authorized to act on its behalf. With respect to the copying and disclosure of recorded personal information pursuant to a request provided by subsection (A), an insurer, agent, or insurance-support organization may make arrangements with an insurance-support organization or a consumer reporting agency to copy and disclose recorded personal information on its behalf.

(F)   The rights granted to individuals in this section must extend to all natural persons to the extent information about them is collected and maintained by an insurer, agent, or insurance-support organization in connection with an insurance transaction. The rights granted to all natural persons by this subsection does not extend to information about them that relates to and is collected in connection with or in reasonable anticipation of a claim or civil or criminal proceeding involving them.

(G)   For purposes of this section, 'insurance-support organization' does not include 'consumer reporting agency'.

Section 38-75-1180.   (A)   If there is a cancellation or nonrenewal of an insurance policy covered pursuant to the provisions of this article, the insurer or agent responsible for the cancellation or nonrenewal shall give a written notice in a form approved by the director that:

(1)   either provides the applicant, policyholder, or individual proposed for coverage with the specific reason or reasons for the cancellation or nonrenewal in writing or advises the person that upon written request he may receive the specific reason or reasons in writing; and

(2)   provides the applicant, policyholder, or individual proposed for coverage with a summary of the rights provided by subsection (B) and Section 38-75-1160.

(B)   Upon receipt of a written request within ninety business days from the date of the mailing of notice or other communication of a cancellation or nonrenewal to an applicant, policyholder, or individual proposed for coverage, the insurer or agent shall furnish to the person within twenty-one business days from the date of receipt of the written request:

(1)   the specific reason or reasons for the cancellation or nonrenewal in writing, if that information was not furnished initially in writing pursuant to subsection (A)(1);

(2)   the specific items of personal and privileged information that support those reasons; however:

(a)   the insurer or agent is not required to furnish specific items of privileged information if it has a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific information available for review by the director, that the applicant, policyholder, or individual proposed for coverage has engaged in criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or material nondisclosure; and

(b)   specific items of medical-record information supplied by a medical-care institution or medical professional must be disclosed either directly to the individual about whom the information relates or to a medical professional designated by the individual and licensed to provide medical care with respect to the condition to which the information relates, whichever the insurer or agent prefers.

(3)   the names and addresses of the institutional sources that supplied the specific items of information given pursuant to subsection (B)(2). However, the identity of any medical professional or medical-care institution must be disclosed either directly to the individual or to the designated medical professional, whichever the insurer or agent prefers.

(C)   The obligations imposed by this section upon an insurer or agent may be satisfied by another insurer or agent authorized to act on its behalf. However, the insurer or agent making the cancellation or nonrenewal remains responsible for compliance with the obligations imposed by this section.

(D)   If a cancellation or nonrenewal results only from an insured's oral request or inquiry, the explanation of reasons and summary of rights required by subsection (A) may be given orally.

Section 38-75-1190.   There is no liability on the part of and no cause of action of any nature may arise against the director or his designees, any insurer, or the authorized representatives, agents, and employees of any firm, person, or corporation furnishing to the insurer information as to reasons for cancellation or refusal to write or renew, for any statement made by any of them in complying with this article, or for the providing of information pertaining to it, unless the person asserting the cause of action establishes that the person against whom the cause of action is asserted was motivated by express malice or gross negligence.

Section 38-75-1200.   (A)   An application for the original issuance of a policy of insurance covered in the article must have the following statement printed on or attached to the first page of the application form, in boldface type:

'THE INSURER CAN CANCEL THIS POLICY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING WITHOUT CAUSE DURING THE FIRST 90 DAYS. THAT IS THE INSURER'S CHOICE. AFTER THE FIRST 90 DAYS, THE INSURER CAN ONLY CANCEL THIS POLICY FOR REASONS STATED IN THE POLICY.'

(B)   An application for the original issuance of a policy of insurance covered in this article that requires the insured to disclose information as to any previous cancellation or refusal to renew also must permit the insured to offer or provide a full explanation of the reason for the cancellation or refusal to renew.

(C)   The notice required by this section must accompany the initial declarations page if the applicant is not provided a written copy at the time of the application and the coverage has been bound by the insurer.

(D)   The insurer may cancel without cause at any time in the first ninety days during which the policy is in effect.

(E)   This section does not apply to the renewal of any policy of insurance.

Section 38-75-1210.   (A)(1)   An insurer or agent may not refuse to issue an insurance policy as defined in this article because of any one or more of the following factors:

(a)   age;

(b)   sex;

(c)   race;

(d)   color;

(e)   creed;

(f)   national origin;

(g)   ancestry;

(h)   marital status; or

(i)     income level.

(2)   An insurer or agent may not refuse to issue an insurance policy defined in this article only because of any one of the following factors:

(a)   the previous refusal of property insurance by another insurer; or

(b)   lawful occupation, including the military service, of the person seeking the coverage.

(3)   Nothing in this section prohibits an insurer from limiting the issuance of insurance policies covered in this article only to persons engaging in or who have engaged in a particular profession or occupation, or who are members of a particular religious sect.

(4)   Nothing in this section prohibits an insurer from setting rates in accordance with relevant actuarial data.

(5)   Nothing in this section prohibits an insurer from refusing to issue policies of insurance due to the catastrophe exposure of wind.

(B)(1)   In determining the premium rates to be charged for an insurance policy covered in this article, it is unlawful to consider:

(a)   race;

(b)   color;

(c)   creed;

(d)   religion;

(e)   sex;

(f)   national origin;

(g)   ancestry;

(h)   economic status; or

(i)     income level.

(2)   An insurer, agent, or a broker may not refuse to write an insurance policy covered in this article based upon:

(a)   age;

(b)   sex;

(c)   race;

(d)   color;

(e)   creed;

(f)   religion;

(g)   national origin;

(h)   ancestry;

(i)     economic status; or

(j)   income level.

(3)   However, nothing in this subsection may preclude the use of a territorial plan approved by the director.

(C)   An insurer or agent who violates this section is subject to the penalties as provided in Section 38-2-10. If the director of the Department of Insurance or his designee finds that an insurer or agent is participating in a pattern of unfair discrimination, the director or his designee may impose a fine of up to two hundred thousand dollars. However, if the unfair discrimination is required by an insurer, only the insurer is subject to the penalty as long as the agent of the insurer has reported the pattern of unfair discrimination to the department. The director or his designee at any time may examine an insurer, agent, or a broker to enforce this section. The expense of examination must be paid by the insurer, agent, or broker.

Section 38-75-1220.   (A)(1)   An insurer may not refuse to renew an insurance policy covered in this article because of any one or more of the following factors:

(a)   age;

(b)   sex;

(c)   race;

(d)   color;

(e)   creed;

(f)   national origin;

(g)   ancestry;

(h)   marital status; or

(i)     income level.

(2)   An insurer may not refuse to renew an insurance policy covered in this article only because of any one of the following factors:

(a)   lawful occupation, including the military service;

(b)   lack of supporting business or lack of the potential for acquiring the business;

(c)   one or more claims that occurred more than thirty-six months immediately preceding the upcoming anniversary date; or

(d)   inquiries concerning coverage submitted to the insurer where no notice of claim was made.

(3)   Nothing contained in subsection (A)(1)(e), (f), and (g) of this subsection prohibits an insurer from refusing to renew a policy where a claim is false or fraudulent. Nothing in this section prohibits an insurer from setting rates in accordance with relevant actuarial data except that no insurer may set rates based in whole or in part on race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, economic status, or income level. However, nothing in this subsection may preclude the use of a territorial plan approved by the director.

(4)   Nothing in this section prohibits an insurer from refusing to renew policies of insurance due to the catastrophe exposure of wind.

(B)   There is no liability on the part of and no cause of action of any nature shall arise against: the director or his designees; an insurer, its authorized representatives, its agents, or its employees; or a person furnishing to the insurer information as to reasons for cancellation or refusal to renew, for any statement made by any of them in complying with this section or for providing information pertaining to the cancellation or refusal to renew. For the purposes of this section, an insurer is not required to furnish a notice of cancellation or refusal to renew to anyone other than the named insured, a person designated by the named insured, or any other person to whom the notice is required to be given by the terms of the policy and the director.

(C)   Within fifteen days of receipt of the notice of cancellation or refusal to renew, an insured or his attorney is entitled to request in writing to the director that he review the action of the insurer in canceling or refusing to renew the policy of the insured. Upon receipt of the request, the director promptly shall begin a review to determine whether the insurer's cancellation or refusal to renew complies with the requirements of this section. If the director finds from the review that the cancellation or refusal to renew has not complied with the requirements of this section, he immediately shall notify the insurer, the insured, and any other person to whom the notice was required to be given by the terms of the policy that the cancellation or refusal to renew is not effective. Nothing in this section authorizes the director to substitute his judgment as to underwriting for that of the insurer.

(D)   Each insurer shall maintain for at least three years, records of cancellation and refusal to renew and copies of each notice or statement referred to in Section 38-75-1160 that it sends to any of its insureds.

(E)   The provisions of this section do not apply to an insurer that limits the issuance of insurance policies covered in this article to one class or group of persons engaged in any one particular profession, trade, occupation, or business. Nothing in this section requires an insurer to renew a policy of insurance covered in this article if the insured does not conform to the occupational or membership requirements of an insurer who limits its writings to an occupation or membership of an organization. An insurer is not required to renew a policy if the insured becomes a nonresident of South Carolina.

(F)   An insurer who violates this section is subject to the penalties as provided in Section 38-2-10. If the director of the Department of Insurance or his designee finds that an insurer, agent, or a broker is participating in a pattern of unfair discrimination, the director or his designee may impose a fine of up to two hundred thousand dollars. However, if the unfair discrimination is required by an insurer, only the insurer is subject to the penalty as long as the agent of the insurer has reported the pattern of unfair discrimination to the department. The director or his designee at any time may examine an insurer, agent, or a broker to enforce this section. The expense of examination must be paid by the insurer, agent, or broker.

Section 38-75-1230.   An insurer may not exclude wind and hail on a fire, allied lines, or homeowners policy unless the property is in the area served by the South Carolina Wind and Hail Underwriting or the exclusion has been approved by the director or his designee.

Section 38-75-1240.   An insurer shall provide the director each year a listing of underwriting restrictions based upon geography and also provide notice of new changes to current underwriting restrictions. These restrictions do not require approval of the director or his designee and are not public information."
B.   This section takes effect six months after approval by the Governor.
SECTION   3.   Section 38-1-20 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 73 of 2003, is further amended by adding:

"(43)   'Insurance-support organization' means a person who regularly engages, in whole or in part, in the practice of assembling or collecting information about natural persons for the primary purpose of providing the information to an insurer or agent for insurance transactions, including: (i) the furnishing of consumer reports or investigative consumer reports to an insurer or agent for use in connection with an insurance transaction; or (ii) the collection of personal information from insurers, agents, or other insurance-support organizations for the purpose of detecting or preventing fraud, material misrepresentation, or material nondisclosure in connection with insurance underwriting or insurance claim activity. However, the following are not considered insurance-support organizations for purposes of this chapter: agents, governmental institutions, insurers, modeling organizations, consumer reporting agencies, medical care institutions, and medical professionals.

(44)   'Modeling organization' means a corporation, an unincorporated association, a partnership, or an individual, whether located within or outside this State, that prepares catastrophe models that are used by insurers in rate filings. Catastrophe models are computer programs that estimate losses from potential upcoming disasters. Catastrophe modeling combines data on property exposures with information on hazards, such as storms or earthquakes, to generate estimates of potential losses."
SECTION   4.   Section 38-73-910(A) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(A)   No An increase in the premium rates may not be granted for workers' compensation, fire, allied lines, and homeowners' insurance, nor for any other line or type of insurance with respect to which the director or his designee has, by order, made a finding that (a) legal or other compulsion upon the part of the insured to purchase the insurance interferes with competition, or (b) under prevailing circumstances there does not exist substantial competition, unless notice is given in all newspapers of general, statewide circulation at least thirty days in advance of the insurer's proposed effective date of the increase in premium rates. The notice shall must state the amount of increase, the type and line of coverage, and the proposed effective date and shall must allow any insured or affected party to request within fifteen days a public hearing upon the propriety of the rate increase request before the Administrative Law Judge Division. A copy of the notice must be sent to the Consumer Advocate.

However, the requirements of public notices and public hearings in this section do not apply to applications for rate increases when the applicant insurer had earned premiums in this State in the previous calendar year of less than two million dollars for the line or type of insurance for which the rate increase is sought or, if the rate increase is sought by a modeling organization, the earned premiums in this State for all members and subscribers of the organization for whom an increase is sought were less than two million dollars for the previous calendar year for the line or type of insurance for which the rate increase is sought. The two million dollars must be increased by a factor equal to the increase in the consumer price index, all items, every three years.

However, a private insurer licensed to underwrite essential property insurance as defined by Section 38-75-310(1), notwithstanding any limitations included within this title, may file and use, pursuant to the provisions of Section 38-73-1095, any rates which result in insurance premium rates of ninety percent, or less, of the insurance premium rates then approved for the South Carolina Wind and Hail Underwriting Association for use within the coastal area of South Carolina as defined by Section 38-75-310(5)."
SECTION 5. Chapter 73, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 38-73-325.   Absence of credit information may be used by an insurer for underwriting purposes only if the insurer presents information satisfactory to the director that the absence is related to the risk."
SECTION   6.   Chapter 73, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 38-73-425.   Absence of credit information may be used by an insurer for underwriting purposes only if the insurer presents information satisfactory to the director that the absence is related to the risk."
SECTION   7.   If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this act is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such holding shall not affect the constitutionality or validity of the remaining portions of this act, the General Assembly hereby declaring that it would have passed this act, and each and every section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words hereof may be declared to be unconstitutional, invalid, or otherwise ineffective.
SECTION   8.   Except as otherwise specified, this act takes effect upon approval by the Governor. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. TRIPP explained the amendment.

Rep. TRIPP continued speaking.
The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up:

S. 1156 (Word version) -- Senator O'Dell: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO HEALTH, BY ADDING CHAPTER 34 SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA IMMUNIZATION REGISTRY ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR AN ELECTRONIC REPOSITORY OF VACCINATION RECORDS TO BE USED IN AIDING CHILDHOOD DISEASE PREVENTION AND CONTROL.

The Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\NBD\12580AC04), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting Section 44-34-20, beginning on page 1 and inserting:
/Section 44-34-20.   A person who administers a vaccine or vaccines licensed by the United States Food and Drug Administration to a child under the age of nineteen shall provide for each vaccination to the department within fourteen days of administration, the data considered necessary by the department and appropriate for the purposes of the immunization registry.

Vaccination data reporting requirements, including without limitation the types of data required to be reported and the time and manner of reporting the data, shall be required after the registry has established linkages to vaccine providers and must follow immunization registry guidelines established by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention./
Amend the bill further, by adding appropriately numbered SECTIONS to read:
/SECTION   __.   Section 40-47-10 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 40-47-10.   There is created the State Board of Medical Examiners to be composed of ten twelve members, one three of whom must be a lay member members, one of whom must be a doctor of osteopathy, two of whom must be physicians or surgeons from the State-at-large, and six of whom must be physicians or surgeons representing each of six congressional districts. All members of the board must be residents of this State, and each member representing a congressional district shall reside in the district the member represents. All physician members of the board must be licensed by the board and must be practicing their profession in South Carolina.

The members of the board shall serve for terms of four years or until their successors are appointed and qualify.

The members of the board are limited to two terms. All members of the board have full voting rights.

The One lay member and one physician or surgeon from the State-at-large must be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The board shall conduct an election to nominate one physician or surgeon from the State-at-large. The election must provide for participation by all physicians or surgeons currently licensed and residing in South Carolina. To nominate the physicians or surgeons who will represent the six congressional districts the board shall conduct an election within each district. These elections must provide for participation by all licensed physicians residing in the particular district. The board shall conduct an election to nominate the doctor of osteopathy from the State-at-large, and this election must provide for participation by any physician currently licensed in South Carolina as a doctor of osteopathy. The board shall certify in writing to the Governor the results of each election. The Governor may reject any or all of the nominees upon satisfactory showing of the unfitness of those rejected. If the Governor declines to appoint any of the nominees submitted, additional nominees must be submitted in the same manner following another election. Vacancies must be filled in a like manner by appointment by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for the unexpired portion of the term.

The Governor may remove a member of the board who is guilty of continued neglect of board duties or who is found to be incompetent, unprofessional, or dishonorable. No member may be removed without first giving the member an opportunity to refute the charges filed against the member. The member must be given a copy of the charges at the time they are filed.

In addition to the above members of the board, there shall be two additional lay members, one to be appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and one to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives."
SECTION   __.   Section 40-47-211 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding a new paragraph at the end to read:

"In addition to the above members of the commission, each congressional district must be represented by two additional lay members who must be residents of the congressional districts which they represent on the commission. Of these members first elected, one must be elected for an initial term of two years, and one must be elected for an initial term of four years; the initial terms of these members must be set by the General Assembly at the election. Thereafter, all lay members must be elected for three-year terms. These lay members of the commission are limited to three terms. Vacancies must be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term by election in the same manner of original election."/
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. MACK explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. DAVENPORT proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name COUNCIL\GGS\22741HTC04), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered section to read:
/   SECTION   _____.   (A)   There is established a Task Force on Emergency Room Diversion to be convened by the Department of Health and Environmental Control to develop a plan for community service alternatives or contract alternatives, or both, for persons who currently use emergency rooms for nonemergency health services. Membership on the task force must include, but is not limited to, representatives of the following:

(1)   South Carolina Medical Association;

(2)   South Carolina Academy of Family Physicians;

(3)   South Carolina Hospital Association;

(4)   Emergency Medical Services Association;

(5)   South Carolina Sheriff's Association;

(6)   Partners in Crisis;

(7)   Probate Court Judges Association;

(8)   South Carolina Psychiatric Association;

(9)   South Carolina Department of Mental Health;

(10)   South Carolina College of Emergency Room Physicians.

(B)   The task force shall submit a plan and budget to reduce inappropriate utilization of the emergency room and to provide more appropriate services. The plan and budget must be submitted to House Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee and the Senate Medical Affairs Committee before January 1, 2005./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. DAVENPORT explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

Rep. J. BROWN moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 27, which was adopted:

S. 1219 (Word version) -- Senators Matthews and Hutto: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-2210, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ORANGEBURG-CALHOUN REGIONAL HOSPITAL, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE GOVERNOR TO MAKE THE APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD AND PROVIDE THAT THE GOVERNING BODIES OF ORANGEBURG AND CALHOUN COUNTIES SHALL MAKE THE APPOINTMENTS ACCORDING TO THE PRO RATA METHOD PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION.

The following Bill was taken up:

S. 430 (Word version) -- Senator Thomas: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 57-23-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SCENIC HIGHWAYS, SO AS TO UPDATE AND INCREASE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SCENIC HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE.

Rep. SCOTT requested debate on the Bill.

The Education and Public Works Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\GGS\22232CM03), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 57-23-50(A)(9), as contained in SECTION 1, by striking line 41 and inserting:
/ (9)   a representative of Palmetto /
When amended, Section 57-23-50(A)(9) shall read:
/   (9)   a representative of Palmetto Pride; /
Amend the bill further, Section 57-23-50(B), as contained in SECTION 1, page 2, by striking / items / on line 11, and inserting / subitem (A) /. When amended, Section 57-23-50(B) shall read:
/   (B)   All members of the committee shall serve for a term of two years and, with the exception of the appointments made pursuant to items subitems (A)(1) and (2), all appointments must be made by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Members of the committee shall serve without compensation or reimbursement. /
Amend the bill further, by striking SECTION 2, page 2, and inserting:
/ SECTION   2.   Section 57-23-800 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 17 of 1999, is amended to read:

"Section 57-23-800.   (A)   The Department of Transportation shall conduct vegetation management of the medians, roadsides, and interchanges along the interstate highway system in accordance with the following requirements:.

(1)   a median of not more than sixty feet in width shall have its mowable area mowed in its entirety. A median wider than sixty feet shall only be mowed within thirty feet from the edges of the pavement.

(2)   a roadside shall be mowed thirty feet from the edge of the pavement. If fill slopes or back slopes are steep, one swath of the mower or not less than five feet shall be mowed on these slopes.

(3)   an interchange shall be mowed in the same manner as a roadside, provided that the distance from the pavement required to be mowed may be increased to address any safety concerns involved.

(B)   The mowing widths provided in subsection (A) may be increased when necessary to provide adequate visibility for signs erected by the department.

(C)   The vegetation management activities conducted by the department shall not interfere in any way with the visibility of any outdoor advertising sign.

(D)   If the Department of Natural Resources makes an assessment and written determination that vegetation management pursuant to this section causes an increase in safety risks because of the attraction of wildlife to a specific area along the highway, then the department may increase the distance from the pavement required to be mowed."
SECTION   3.   This act shall take effect upon approval by the Governor. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. TOWNSEND moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. TOWNSEND proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name COUNCIL\SWB\6098CM04), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 57-23-50(A)(9), as contained in SECTION 1, by striking line 40 and inserting:
/   (9)     a representative of Palmetto /
Amend the bill further, Section 57-23-50(B), as contained in SECTION 1, page 2, by striking / items / on line 11, and inserting
/ items subitem (a) /.
Amend the bill further, by striking SECTION 2, page 2, and inserting:
/ SECTION   2.   Section 57-23-800 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 17 of 1999, is amended to read:

"Section 57-23-800.   (A)   The Department of Transportation shall conduct vegetation management of the medians, roadsides, and interchanges along the interstate highway system in accordance with the following requirements:. The department's vegetation management activities may not interfere with the visibility of any outdoor advertising signs.

(1)   a median of not more than sixty feet in width shall have its mowable area mowed in its entirety. A median wider than sixty feet shall only be mowed within thirty feet from the edges of the pavement.

(2)   a roadside shall be mowed thirty feet from the edge of the pavement. If fill slopes or back slopes are steep, one swath of the mower or not less than five feet shall be mowed on these slopes.

(3)   an interchange shall be mowed in the same manner as a roadside, provided that the distance from the pavement required to be mowed may be increased to address any safety concerns involved.

(B)   The mowing widths provided in subsection (A) may be increased when necessary to provide adequate visibility for signs erected by the department.

(C)   The vegetation management activities conducted by the department shall not interfere in any way with the visibility of any outdoor advertising sign.

(D)   If the Department of Natural Resources makes an assessment and written determination that vegetation management pursuant to this section causes an increase in safety risks because of the attraction of wildlife to a specific area along the highway, then the department may increase the distance from the pavement required to be mowed."
SECTION   3.   This act shall take effect upon approval by the Governor. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. TOWNSEND explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

Reps. RUTHERFORD, CLYBURN, LLOYD and HOSEY requested debate on the Bill.

Upon the withdrawal of requests for debate by Reps. FREEMAN, CLYBURN, BREELAND, TRIPP and KENNEDY, the following Bill was taken up:

S. 1133 (Word version) -- Senator Waldrep: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 59-26-30 AND 59-26-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BOTH RELATING TO TEACHER ASSESSMENTS AND TEACHER CERTIFICATION, SO AS TO CHANGE REFERENCES FROM STUDENT TEACHERS TO TEACHER CANDIDATES, TO REMOVE PROVISIONAL CONTRACTS FROM THE TYPES OF CONTRACTS UNDER WHICH TEACHERS MAY BE EMPLOYED, TO PROVIDE THAT CONTINUING CONTRACT TEACHERS MUST BE EVALUATED ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS, TO PROVIDE WHEN A TEACHER MAY RECEIVE DIAGNOSTIC ASSISTANCE, AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANNUAL CONTRACT TEACHERS.

Rep. WALKER explained the Bill.

The Bill was read second time and ordered to third reading.

The Senate amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:

H. 3987 (Word version) -- Reps. White, Altman and Toole: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-2910, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRIMINAL RECORD CHECKS FOR DIRECT CAREGIVERS IN NURSING HOMES AND OTHER FACILITIES PROVIDING CARE TO ADULTS, SO AS TO REQUIRE A FACILITY TO COMMENCE A CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF EMPLOYING OR CONTRACTING WITH A DIRECT CAREGIVER, TO REQUIRE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES PLACING DIRECT CAREGIVERS TO HAVE SUCH CHECKS CONDUCTED AND TO MAINTAIN A RECORD OF THE RESULTS OF THE CHECK AT THE EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, TO DELETE FACULTY AND STUDENTS IN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN DIRECT CARE FACILITIES FROM THE DEFINITION OF "DIRECT CAREGIVER", TO REQUIRE A DIRECT CAREGIVER ANNUALLY TO SIGN A STATEMENT THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF CERTAIN ENUMERATED CRIMES, AND TO DELETE PROVISIONS EXEMPTING CAREGIVER APPLICANTS WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF NORTH CAROLINA OR GEORGIA FROM A FEDERAL CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK.

Rep. WHITE proposed the following Amendment No. 1A (Doc Name COUNCIL\MS\7356AHB04), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/ SECTION   1.   Section 44-7-2910 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 242 of 2002, is amended to read:

"Section 44-7-2910.   (A)(1)   No direct care entity may employ or contract with a direct caregiver until after the direct caregiver has undergone a criminal record check as provided in this section. However, pending the results of the criminal record check, a person temporarily may be employed or may contract as a direct caregiver with a direct care entity. A direct care entity employing or contracting with a direct caregiver shall conduct a criminal record check as provided in this section prior to employing or contracting with the direct caregiver. A direct care entity may consider the all information revealed by a criminal record check as a factor in evaluating a direct caregiver's application to be employed by or contract with the entity.

(2)   An employment agency may not furnish employees to a direct care entity without conducting a criminal record check on each employee. An employee who works in multiple direct care settings must have a criminal record check on file at the location of the employment agency, the home office of his employer, or at the individual's primary place of employment.

(B)   For purposes of this article:

(1)   'Direct care entity' means:

(a)   a nursing home, as defined in Section 44-7-130;

(b)   a daycare facility for adults, as defined in Section 44-7-130;

(c)   a home health agency, as defined in Section 44-69-20;

(d)   a community residential care facility, as defined in Section 44-7-130;

(2)   'Direct caregiver' or 'caregiver' means:

(a)   a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, or certified nurse assistant;

(b)   any other licensed professional employed by or contracting with a direct care entity who provides to patients or clients direct care or services and includes, but is not limited to, a physical, speech, occupational, or respiratory care therapist;

(c)   a person who is not licensed but provides physical assistance or care to a patient or client served by a direct care entity;

(d)   a person employed by or under contract with a direct care entity who works within any building housing patients or clients;

(e)   a person employed by or under contract with by a direct care entity whose duties include the possibility of patient or client contact; or.

(f) For purposes of this article, a direct caregiver does not include a faculty member or student enrolled in an educational program, including clinical study in a direct care entity.

(C)(1) A direct caregiver applicant shall provide verification of residency for the twelve months preceding the date of the employment application. The direct care entity shall conduct a state criminal record check if the applicant has resided in South Carolina during that twelve-month period and can verify residency through:

(a)   a driver's license or identification card issued by the State of South Carolina;

(b)   rent, mortgage, or utility receipts in the applicant's name for a home within South Carolina;

(c)   pay stubs in the applicant's name from a business located in South Carolina; or

(d)   bank records in the applicant's name showing a deposit or checking account held in a South Carolina branch office of a bank.

(2)   A direct care entity unable to verify South Carolina residency for a direct care applicant for the preceding twelve months shall conduct a federal state criminal record check on the applicant in addition to the state prior to employment and shall commence a federal criminal record check after employment. However, if the direct care entity is located in a county of this State that borders either North Carolina or Georgia and the direct care applicant can verify residency in North Carolina or Georgia another state for the preceding twelve months preceding the date of the employment application through the same means enumerated in (C)(1)(a) through (d), the direct care entity shall may conduct only a state criminal record check in the applicant's resident state or jurisdiction where the applicant previously resided.
SECTION   2.   Section 44-7-2920 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 242 of 2002, is amended to read:

"Section 44-7-2920.   Criminal record checks required pursuant to this article must be conducted by the State Law Enforcement Division or by a private business, organization, or association which conducts background checks if that entity utilizes current criminal records obtained from the State Law Enforcement Division or the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine any criminal record. An applicant shall submit with the application one complete set of the applicant's fingerprints on forms specified or furnished by the State Law Enforcement Division. Fingerprint cards submitted to the State Law Enforcement Division pursuant to this section must be used to facilitate a national criminal records check, as required by this section. Pending the results of the criminal record check, a person temporarily may be employed or contract with a direct care entity. The criminal record check is not required to be repeated as long as the person remains employed by or continues to contract with a direct care entity; however, if a person is not employed by or is not under contract for one year or longer with a direct care entity, the criminal record check must be repeated before resuming employment or contracting with a direct care entity. The fee charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if any, for the fingerprint review must be paid by the individual direct caregiver or the direct care entity."
SECTION   3.   This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor and applies to direct caregivers employed by or who contract with a direct care entity on or after this act's effective date. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. WHITE explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

The Senate amendments, as amended, were then agreed to and the Bill was ordered returned to the Senate.

The Senate amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:

H. 4720 (Word version) -- Rep. Harrison: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO TITLE 26, SO AS TO ENACT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT, PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS, LEGAL EFFECT AND ENFORCEABILITY OF AN ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE, CHANGES OR ERRORS IN TRANSMISSION OF AN ELECTRONIC RECORD, COMPLIANCE OF AN ELECTRONIC RECORD OR SIGNATURE WITH OTHER LAWS AFFECTING VALIDITY OR RETENTION OR RECEIPT OF A RECORD OR SIGNATURE, USE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS BY THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TO ENHANCE THE UTILIZATION OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND SIGNATURES, AND DEVELOPMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF MODEL PROCEDURES AND PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS FOR SECURE ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS, INCLUDING LICENSING OF THIRD PARTIES; TO MAKE THE COMPUTER CRIME ACT APPLICABLE TO THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT; AND TO REPEAL CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 26, THE SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT.

Rep. HARRISON moved to adjourn debate upon the Senate Amendments until Thursday, May 27, which was agreed to.

The Senate amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:

H. 4645 (Word version) -- Reps. Littlejohn, Davenport, Mahaffey, W. D. Smith, Talley and Walker: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1 OF 2001, RELATING TO SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR A PARTICULAR YEAR AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BOND AUTHORIZATIONS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SO AS TO REVISE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BOND AUTHORIZATION FOR USC-SPARTANBURG MAY BE USED.

Rep. LITTLEJOHN moved to adjourn debate upon the Senate Amendments until Thursday, May 27, which was agreed to.

The Senate amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:

H. 4821 (Word version) -- Reps. Hayes, Battle, G. Brown, J. Hines, Jennings, Keegan and Richardson: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 37, TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF OPTOMETRISTS, SO AS TO CONFORM THIS CHAPTER TO THE STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK ESTABLISHED FOR PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL BOARDS IN CHAPTER 1, TITLE 40, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION; AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF OPTOMETRISTS, BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO PROVIDE THAT A BACHELOR OF ARTS OR BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IS REQUIRED FOR LICENSURE, TO ESTABLISH LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT, TO CLARIFY THAT THERAPEUTICALLY-CERTIFIED OPTOMETRIC EDUCATION COURSES MAY BE TAKEN WHILE ATTENDING SCHOOL RATHER THAN AFTER GRADUATION, TO PROVIDE THAT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, ALL LICENSED OPTOMETRISTS MUST BE LICENSED AS THERAPEUTICALLY-CERTIFIED OPTOMETRISTS, AND TO PROVIDE TRANSITION PROVISIONS.

Rep. J. R. SMITH proposed the following Amendment No. 1A (Doc Name COUNCIL\NBD\12610AC04), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 40-47-1620 page 39, beginning on line 20, by deleting /Department of Health and Environmental Control/ and inserting /Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation/.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. J. R. SMITH explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. DAVENPORT proposed the following Amendment No. 2A (Doc Name COUNCIL\NBD\12619AC04), which was ruled out of order:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/SECTION   __. A.   Chapter 25, Title 40 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

The Practice Of Specializing In Hearing Aids

Section 40-25-10.   This chapter may be cited as the 'Practice of Specializing in Hearing Aids Act'.

Section 40-25-20.   As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1)   'Department' means the Department of Health and Environmental Control.

(2)   'Commission' means the State Commission for Hearing Aid Specialists.

(3)   'License' means a license issued by the department under this chapter to hearing aid specialists.

(4)   'Temporary permit' means a permit issued while the applicant is in training to become a licensed hearing aid specialist.

(5)   'Hearing aid' means an acceptable wearable instrument or device designated or offered to aid or compensate for impaired human hearing and parts, attachments, or accessories, including earmold, but excluding batteries and cords.

(6)   'Practice of specializing in hearing aids' means the measurement of human hearing by an audiometer and by other established means solely for fitting, making selections, adaptations, or sale of hearing aids. It also includes the making of impressions for earmolds.

(7)   'Sell' or 'sale' means the transfer of title or of the right to use by lease, bailment, or other contract, excluding wholesale transactions with distributors or specialists.

(8)   'Hearing aid specialist' means an individual licensed under this chapter to engage in the practice of specializing in hearing aids.

(9)   'Audiologist' means an individual licensed by the State Board of Examiners in Speech Pathology and Audiology as an audiologist.

(10)   'Otolaryngologist' means a licensed physician specializing in ear, nose, and throat.

Section 40-25-30.   The powers and duties of the department are to:

(1)   authorize disbursements necessary to carry out this chapter;

(2)   supervise issuance of licenses "by experience" and administer qualifying examinations to test the knowledge and proficiency of applicants licensed by examination;

(3)   register persons who apply to the department and are qualified to engage in the practice of specializing in hearing aids;

(4)   purchase and maintain or rent audiometric equipment and other facilities necessary to carry out the examination of applicants;

(5)   issue and renew licenses;

(6)   suspend or revoke licenses or require that refunds be made;

(7)   designate the time and place for examining applicants;

(8)   enforce this chapter;

(9)   promulgate and publish regulations not inconsistent with the laws of this State and necessary to carry out this chapter, including the establishment of licensing fees;

(10)   appoint or employ subordinate employees;

(11)   retain funds received for administration of the program;

(12)   require the periodic inspection of audiometric testing equipment and carry out the periodic inspection of facilities of persons who engage in the practice of specializing in hearing aids.

(13)   appoint members of the commission and other individuals who are not audiologists to conduct and supervise the written and practical examinations;

Section 40-25-40.   (A)   A Commission of Hearing Aid Specialists is established to guide, advise, and make recommendations to the department.

(B)(1)   Members of the commission must be residents of the State. The commission consists of:

(a)   five licensed hearing aid specialists, and each must be a principal dealer of a different manufacturer's hearing aid who are not audiologists;

(b)   one otolaryngologist;

(c)   one representative of the general public who is a user of a hearing aid, is not associated with a hearing aid specialist or manufacturer, and is not a member of the other groups or professions required to be represented on the commission;

(d)   the State Health Officer or his designee.

(2)   Each hearing aid specialist on the commission must have no less than five years experience under this chapter.

(C)   Members of the commission in subsection (B)(1)(a) through (d) must be appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Before appointing the member in subsection (B)(1)(d) the Governor shall invite recommendations from the South Carolina Hearing Aid Society, the Commission on Aging, the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Education, the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, the Board of Commissioners of the School for the Deaf and the Blind, and other agencies or organizations which might have knowledge of qualified citizens to serve on the commission. The term of each member is four years. Before a member's term expires the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a successor to assume his duties at the expiration of the term. A vacancy must be filled in the manner of the original appointment. The members annually shall designate one member as chairman and another as secretary. No member of the commission who has served two or more full terms may be reappointed until at least one year after the expiration of his most recent full term of office.

(D)   Commission members may receive per diem and mileage provided by law for members of state boards, committees, and commissions for each day actually spent in the duties of the commission. No member may receive more than fifteen days per diem in one fiscal year.

Section 40-25-50.   The commission shall:

(1)   advise the department in all matters relating to this chapter;

(2)   prepare the examinations required by this chapter for the department;

(3)   assist the department in carrying out this chapter;

(4)   keep a record of its proceedings and a register of persons licensed under this chapter;

(5)   make a report each year to the Governor of all its official acts during the preceding year;
(6) meet not less than once each year at a place, day, and hour determined by the commission and meet at other times and places requested by the department.

Section 40-25-60.   (A)   No person may engage in the practice of specializing in hearing aids or display a sign or in another way advertise or represent himself as a person who engages in the practice of specializing in hearing aids after January 1, 1972, unless he holds an unsuspended, unrevoked license issued by the department under this chapter. The license number must be listed in an advertisement or a representation. The license must be posted conspicuously in his office or place of business. Duplicate licenses must be issued by the department to valid license holders operating more than one office without additional payment. A license under this chapter confers upon the holder the right to perform only those hearing tests necessary to select, fit, and sell hearing aids.

(B) Nothing in this chapter prohibits a corporation, partnership, trust, association, or like organization maintaining an established business address from engaging in the business of selling or offering for sale hearing aids at retail without a license, if it employs only properly licensed natural persons in the direct sale and fitting of the products.

Section 40-25-70.   (A) A person who engages in the practice of specializing in hearing aids shall deliver to a person supplied with a hearing aid a receipt which contains the licensee's signature and business address, the number of his license, specifications as to the make and model of the hearing aid furnished, and full terms of the sale clearly stated. If an aid which is not new is sold, the receipt and its container must be marked clearly as "used" or "reconditioned", whichever is applicable, with terms of guarantee, if any.

(B) The purchaser must be advised at the outset of his relationship with the hearing aid specialist that an examination or a representation is not an examination, diagnosis, or prescription by a person licensed to practice medicine in this State.

(C) A person engaged in the practice of specializing in hearing aids shall comply with federal regulations, 21 CFR 801, or related amendments to the regulations. He may not sell a hearing aid to a prospective user under eighteen years of age unless he presents to the dealer a written statement signed by a licensed physician stating that the patient's hearing loss has been evaluated medically, and the patient may be considered a candidate for a hearing aid. This evaluation must have taken place within the preceding six months.

Section 40-25-80.   (A) This chapter does not:

(1) prevent a person from engaging in the practice of measuring human hearing for the purpose of selection of hearing aids if the person or organization employing him does not sell hearing aids or their accessories except for earmolds used only for audiologic evaluation;

(2) apply to a physician or audiologist licensed to practice in South Carolina;

(3) apply to an audiologist or another person while he is engaged in the practice of recommending hearing aids if his practice is part of the academic curriculum of an accredited institution of higher education or part of a program conducted by a public, charitable institution or nonprofit organization which primarily is supported by voluntary contributions, if this organization does not sell hearing aids or accessories.

(B) On the selling and fitting of hearing aids located in the temples of glasses, licensees may not make facial measurements or adapt, fit, or adjust lenses or frames under this chapter, except for the replacement of temples by those incorporating hearing aid components, unless legally qualified to do so under other South Carolina statutes.

Section 40-25-90.   For six months after January 1, 1972, an applicant for a license must be issued one without examination if the applicant:

(1) principally has been engaged as a hearing aid specialist for at least two years within a period of five years immediately before January 1, 1972;

(2) is a resident of South Carolina and is of good moral character;

(3) is twenty-one years of age or older;

(4) is free of contagious or infectious disease.

Section 40-25-100.   (A) The department shall register each applicant without discrimination or examination who satisfactorily passes the experience requirement in Section 40-25-90 or passes an examination in Section 40-25-110 and upon the applicant's payment of a fee set by the department through regulation shall issue to the applicant a license signed by the department. The license is effective for one year and expires one year after it is issued.

(B) When the commission determines that another state or jurisdiction has requirements equivalent to or higher than those in effect pursuant to this chapter and that the state or jurisdiction has a program equivalent to or stricter than the program for determining whether applicants pursuant to this chapter are qualified to dispense and fit hearing aids, the department may issue certificates of endorsement to applicants who hold current unsuspended and unrevoked certificates or licenses to fit and sell hearing aids in the other state or jurisdiction if the applicant is twenty-one years of age. Applicants for certificate of endorsement are not required to submit to or undergo a qualifying examination, other than the payment of fees pursuant to this chapter. The holder of a certificate of endorsement must be registered in the same manner as licensees. The fee for issuance of a license based upon an initial certificate of endorsement is the same as the fee for an initial license. Fees, grounds for renewal, and procedures for the suspension and revocation of certificates of endorsement and licenses are the same.

Section 40-25-110.   (A) An applicant may obtain a license by successfully passing a qualifying examination if he:

(1) is at least twenty-one years of age;

(2) has an education equivalent to a four-year course in an accredited high school.

(B) [Reserved]

(C) An applicant for license by examination shall appear at a time, place, and before persons the department may designate to be examined by means of written and practical tests in order to demonstrate that he is qualified to engage in the practice of specializing in hearing aids. The examination administered as directed by the department constituting standards for licensing must not be conducted so that college training is required to pass the examination. Nothing in this examination may imply that the applicant possess the degree of medical competence normally expected of physicians. If an applicant fails the practical portion of the examination, he may appeal to the commission.

(D) The department shall give examinations at least once a year.

Section 40-25-120.   (A) A person who fulfills the requirements regarding age and education in Section 40-25-110 may obtain a temporary permit upon application to the department. Previous experience or a waiting period is not required to obtain a temporary permit.

(B) Upon receiving an application under this section accompanied by a fee set by the department through regulation, the department shall issue a temporary permit which entitles the applicant to engage in the fitting and sale of hearing aids for one year. A person holding a valid hearing aid specialist license shall supervise and train the applicant, maintain adequate personal contact, and make quarterly reports to the department about the performance of the person holding the temporary permit.

(C) If a person who holds a temporary permit under this section has not passed successfully the licensing examination within one year from the date of issuance, the temporary permit, may be renewed or the applicant may be permitted to reapply at a later date.

Section 40-25-130.   The qualifying examination in Section 40-25-110 must be designated to demonstrate the applicant's adequate technical qualifications by:

(1) tests of knowledge in the following areas as they pertain to the practice of specializing in hearing aids:

(a) basic physics of sound;

(b) anatomy and physiology of the ear;

(c) function of hearing aids;

(2) practical tests of proficiency in the following techniques as they pertain to the fitting of hearing aids:

(a) pure tone audiometry, including air conduction testing and bone conduction testing;

(b) live voice or recorded voice speech audiometry, including speech reception threshold testing and speech discrimination testing;

(c) masking when indicated;

(d) recording and evaluation of audiograms and speech audiometry to determine proper selection and adaptation of a hearing aid;

(e) taking earmold impressions.

Section 40-25-140.(A) A person who holds a license shall notify the department in writing of the regular address of the place where he engages or intends to engage in the practice of specializing in hearing aids.

(B) The department shall keep a record of the place of business of licensees.

(C) Notice required to be given by the department to a person who holds a license must be mailed to him by certified mail at the address of the last place of business of which he has notified the department.

Section 40-25-150.   (A) A person who engages in the practice of specializing in hearing aids before the license expiration date shall pay to the department a fee set by the department through regulation for issuance or a renewal of his license. The license must be posted conspicuously in his office or place of business. Where more than one office is operated by the licensee, duplicate licenses must be issued by the department for posting in each location. A thirty-day grace period is allowed after the license expiration date during which licenses may be renewed on payment of a fee set by the department through regulation. After expiration of the grace period, the department may renew the certificates upon payment of a fee set by the department through regulation. No person who applies for renewal whose license has expired is required to submit to examination as a condition to renewal, if the renewal application is made within two years from the date of the expiration.

(B) A licensee or temporary permit holder shall maintain a progressing level of professional competence by participation during the previous year of licensing in educational programs designed to keep the licensee informed of changes, current practices, and developments pertaining to the fitting of hearing aids and rehabilitation as appropriate to hearing aid use.

(C) The licensee annually shall submit to the commission proof of having participated in a minimum of eight hours of continuing education during the previous year of licensing. The requirement may be fulfilled by attending and participating in training activities approved by the commission and those accredited by the International Hearing Society, unless disapproved by the commission.

(D) A person or organization desiring to conduct continuing education training programs shall submit the programs to the commission for approval before presentation. The commission shall develop procedures for submitting these requests and for approving or disapproving them.

(E) Failure to complete the minimum educational requirements results in a license suspension until the requirements are met. The commission, upon sufficient cause shown by the licensee, may allow the licensee to make up the necessary hours during the next year of licensing. The make-up allowance does not waive the full annual requirements for continued education.

Section 40-25-160.   (A) A person wishing to make a complaint against a licensee under this chapter shall file a written complaint with the department within one year from the date of the action upon which the complaint is based. If the department determines the charges made in the complaint are sufficient to warrant a hearing to determine whether the license issued under this chapter must be suspended or revoked, it shall make an order fixing a time and place for hearing and require the licensee complained against to appear and defend against the complaint. The order and copy of the complaint must be served upon the licensee at least thirty days before the date set for hearing, personally or by registered mail sent to the licensee's last known address. Continuances or adjournment of hearing date must be made if for good cause. At the hearing the licensee complained against may be represented by counsel. The licensee complained against and the department may compel the attendance of witnesses by subpoenas issued by the department under its seal.

(B) A person registered under this chapter may have his license revoked or suspended for a fixed period or be required to make a refund by the department for:

(1) conviction of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. The record of conviction or a certified copy, certified by the clerk of court or by the judge in whose court the conviction is had, is conclusive evidence of the conviction;

(2) procuring of license by fraud or deceit practiced upon the department;

(3) unethical conduct, including, but not limited to:

(a) obtaining a fee or making a sale by fraud or misrepresentation;

(b) knowingly employing directly or indirectly a suspended or unregistered person to perform work covered by this chapter;

(c) using or causing or promoting the use of advertising matter, promotional literature, or testimonial, guarantee, warranty, label, brand, insignia, or other representation, however disseminated or published, which is misleading, deceptive, or untruthful;

(d) advertising a particular model or type of hearing aid for sale when purchasers or prospective purchasers responding to the advertisement cannot purchase the advertised model or type, where it is established that the purpose of the advertisement is to obtain prospects for the sale of a different model or type than that advertised;

(e) representing that the service or advice of a person licensed to practice medicine will be used or made available in the selection, fitting, adjustment, maintenance, or repair of hearing aids when that is not true or using the words "doctor" or "clinic" or similar words, abbreviations, or symbols which tend to connote the medical profession when the use is not the case. No hearing aid specialist who is not a licensed audiologist may represent himself as a licensed audiologist in the practice of selling hearing aids;

(f) habitual intemperance;

(g) gross immorality;

(h) permitting another's use of a license;

(i) advertising a manufacturer's product or using a manufacturer's name or trademark which implies a relationship with the manufacturer that does not exist;

(j) directly or indirectly giving or offering to give or permitting or causing to be given money or anything of value to a person who advises another in a professional capacity as an inducement to influence him or have him influence others to purchase or contract to purchase products sold or offered for sale by a hearing aid specialist;

(k) stating or implying that the use of a hearing aid will restore or preserve hearing or prevent or retard progression of hearing impairment;

(4) conducting business while suffering from a contagious or infectious disease;

(5) engaging in the practice of specializing in hearing aids under a false name or alias with fraudulent intent;

(6) selling a hearing aid to a person who has not been given tests utilizing appropriate established procedures and instrumentation in fitting of hearing aids, except in cases of selling replacement hearing aids or where it is medically impossible to conduct routine testing;

(7) gross incompetence or negligence in fitting and selling hearing aids; or

(8) violating this chapter.

(C) If a refund must be made under this section, the department may suspend the license of the person required to make the refund until it is made.

Section 40-25-170.   (A) The final order of the department in proceedings for the suspension or revocation of certificates of registration are subject to review by the circuit court of Richland County, the county in which the registrant has his principal place of business, or the county in which the books and records of the department are kept. Other final orders of the department under this chapter are subject to review in the same courts.

(B) Appeals to the circuit court must be upon the original records before the department, and the court in its discretion may affirm, reverse, or modify an order made by the department.

Section 40-25-180.   No person may:

(1) sell, barter, or offer to sell or barter a license;

(2) purchase or procure by barter a license with intent to use it as evidence of the holder's qualification to engage in the practice of specializing in hearing aids;

(3) alter a license with fraudulent intent;

(4) use or attempt to use as a valid license a license which has been purchased, fraudulently obtained, counterfeited, or materially altered;

(5) wilfully make a false statement in an application for license or application for renewal of license.

Section 40-25-190.   A person violating this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days.
Hearing Instrument Specialists and Hearing Aid Fitters

Section 40-25-5.   Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, Article 1, Chapter 1, Title 40 applies to Hearing Instrument Specialists and Fitters. However, if there is a conflict between this chapter and Article 1, Chapter 1, Title 40, the provisions of this chapter control.

Section 40-25-10.   (A)   There is created the Board of Examiners for Hearing Instrument Specialists and Fitters under the administration of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. The purpose of this board is to protect the public through the administration and enforcement of this chapter and any regulations promulgated under this chapter regulating the practice of hearing instrument specialists and fitters.

(B)   The Board of Examiners for Hearing Instrument Specialists and Fitters consists of five hearing instrument specialists, each of whom must have five years or more experience and hold a valid license issued under this chapter, one otolaryngologist licensed under Chapter 47, and one consumer member. Members must be appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Nominations for appointment to the board may be submitted to the Governor from a group, individual, or association and must be considered in accordance with Section 40-1-45. Members shall serve terms of four years and until a successor has been appointed and qualifies. A member may not serve more than two consecutive terms. A vacancy on the board must be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term in the manner of the original appointment.

(C)   The Governor may remove a member of the board in accordance with Section 1-3-240.

(D)   A member of the board, before entering upon the discharge of the duties of the office, shall take and file with the Secretary of State, in writing, an oath to perform properly the duties of the office as a member of the board and to uphold the Constitution of this State and the United States.

Section 40-25-20.   As used in this chapter:

(1)   audiologist means an individual who is licensed to practice audiology, pursuant to Chapter 67.

(2)   'Audioprosthologist' means an individual licensed under this chapter who has completed the audioprosthology coursework and is currently certified by the National Institute for Hearing Instrument Studies.

(3)   'Board' means the Board of Examiners for Hearing Instrument Specialists and Fitters.

(4)   'Department' means the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.

(5)   'Hearing Aid' means an acceptable wearable instrument or device designated or offered to aid or compensate for impaired human hearing, including parts, attachments, and accessories, which include earmold, cords, and batteries.

(6)   'Hearing Aid Fitter' means an individual licensed under this chapter to engage in practice only under the supervision of a licensed Hearing Instrument Specialist.

(7)   'Hearing Instrument Specialist' means an individual licensed under this chapter who is currently board certified by the National Board for Certification in Hearing Instrument Sciences.

(8)   'IHS' means the International Hearing Society.

(9)   'License' means a license issued by the board under this chapter to practice as a hearing instrument specialist or fitter.

(10)   'Specializing in hearing aids' means the measurement of human hearing by an audiometer and by other established means solely for fitting, selecting, adapting, programming, or selling hearing aids. It also includes making impressions for earmolds.

(11)   'Temporary Permit' means a permit issued to an individual that allows a person in training or a person licensed in another jurisdiction to practice under the supervision of a licensed hearing instrument specialist or audiologist while completing the license requirements set forth by the board. The sponsoring party, hearing instrument specialist or audiologist, is liable under this chapter and any accompanying regulations for the actions of the temporary permit holder.

Section 40-25-30.   No person may specialize in hearing aids without a license issued in accordance with this chapter. A hearing aid fitter or temporary permit holder may only practice under the supervision of a hearing instrument specialist or audiologist. However, as of July 1, 2003, a person currently licensed to dispense hearing aids in the State who provides proof of being certified as a Hearing Instrument Specialist by the National Board for Certification-Hearing Instrument Sciences must be issued a license as a 'Hearing Instrument Specialist' without further examination. Other persons who are currently licensed as of July 1, 2003, must be issued a 'Hearing Aid Fitter' license and are authorized to operate unsupervised for five years, at which time those individuals must have become certified by the National Board for Certification-Hearing Instrument Sciences or must be supervised by a Hearing Instrument Specialist.

Section 40-25-50.   (A)   These fees must be assessed, collected, and adjusted on behalf of the board by the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation in accordance with this chapter and Section 40-1-50(D), which was ruled out of order:

(1)   biennial license renewal fee;

(2)   annual fee, temporary permit;

(3)   license examination fee, written;

(4)   license examination fee, practical;

(5)   reinstatement of license fee.

(B)   All fees are nonrefundable.

(C)   A check which is presented to the board as payment for a fee which the board is permitted to charge under this chapter and which is returned unpaid may be cause for denial of a license or for imposing a sanction authorized under this chapter or Section 40-1-120.

Section 40-25-60.   (A)The board annually shall elect from among its members a chairman, vice-chairman, and other officers as the board determines necessary. The board shall adopt rules and procedures reasonably necessary for the performance of its duties and the governance of its operations and proceedings.

(B)   The board shall meet quarterly to administer examinations and conduct business on behalf of the board and at other times upon the call of the chairman or a majority of the board.

(C)   Three members of the board constitute a quorum; however, if there is a vacancy on the board, a majority of the members serving constitutes a quorum.

(D)   Any business conducted by the board must be by a positive majority vote. For purposes of this subsection, 'positive majority vote' means a majority vote of the entire membership of the board, reduced by any vacancies existing at the time.

(E)   The board may have and use an official seal bearing the name of the board.

Section 40-25-70.   In addition to the powers and duties enumerated in Sections 40-1-70 through 40-1-100, the board shall:

(1)   regulate the issuance of Hearing Instrument Specialist, Hearing Aid Fitters licenses and temporary permits;

(2)   promulgate regulations and establish policies and procedures necessary to carry out this chapter; and

(3)   discipline licensees in any manner permitted by this chapter or under Sections 40-1-110 through 40-1-150.

Section 40-25-80.   For the purpose of conducting an investigation or proceeding under this chapter, the board or a person designated by the board may subpoena witnesses, take evidence, and require the production of any documents or records which the board considers relevant to the inquiry.

Section 40-25-100.   Restraining orders and cease and desist orders must be issued in accordance with Section 40-1-100.

Section 40-25-110.   In addition to grounds for disciplinary action as set forth in Section 40-1-110 and in accordance with Section 40-25-120, the board may take disciplinary action against a licensee who:

(1)   violates federal or state laws relating to the practice of specializing in hearing aids;

(2)   violates a provision of this chapter or an order issued under this chapter or a regulation promulgated under this chapter;

(3)   fraudulently or deceptively attempts to use, obtain, alter, sell, or barter a license;

(4)   aids or abets a person who is not a licensed hearing instrument specialist or hearing aid fitter in illegally engaging in the practice of specializing in hearing aids within this State;

(5)   participates in the fraudulent procurement or renewal of a license for himself or another person or allows another person to use his license.

(6)   commits fraud or deceit in the practice of specializing in hearing aids including, but not limited to:

(a)   using or promoting or causing the use of any misleading deceiving or untruthful advertising matter, promotional literature, testimonial guarantee, warranty, label, brand insignia, or any other representation;

(b)   wilfully making or filing a false report or record in the practice of specializing in hearing aids or in satisfying requirements of this chapter;

(c)   submitting a false statement to collect a fee or obtaining a fee through fraud or misrepresentation.

(7)   commits an act of dishonest, immoral, or unprofessional conduct while engaging in the practice of specializing in hearing aids including, but not limited to:

(a)   engaging in illegal, incompetent, or negligent practice of specializing in hearing aids;

(b)   providing professional services while mentally incompetent or under the influence of alcohol or drugs;

(c)   promoting the sale of devices to a person who cannot reasonably be expected to benefit from the devices.

(8)   is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a felony or violation of a federal, state, or local drug law;

(9)   is disciplined by a licensing or disciplinary authority of another state, country, or nationally recognized professional organization or convicted of or disciplined by a court of any state or country for an act that would be grounds for disciplinary action under this section;

(10)   violates the code of ethics promulgated in regulation by the board.

Section 40-25-115.   (A)   The board has jurisdiction over the actions of licensees and former licensees as provided for in Section 40-1-115.

(B)(1)   Before dispensing a hearing aid, a licensee shall conduct a hearing measurement including:

(a)   pure tone audiometry;

(b)   speech audiometry;

(c)   hearing aid evaluation.

(2)   A licensee shall deliver a receipt to the person being supplied a hearing aid which contains the licensee's signature, business address, license number, specifications as to the make and model of the hearing aid being furnished, and full terms of the sale clearly stated. If no commercial office is located within the State, a clear statement to that effect must be made on the receipt. If the office is not open five days a week, the regular hours when licensed persons are present to provide service must be noted on the receipt. If an aid which is not new is sold, the receipt and the aid's container must be marked clearly as 'used' or 'reconditioned', whichever is applicable, with terms of the guarantee, if any.

(3)   A licensee may not sell a hearing aid to a prospective user under eighteen years of age unless the patient presents to the licensee a written statement signed by a licensed physician stating that the patient's hearing loss has been evaluated medically, and the patient may be considered a candidate for a hearing aid. This evaluation must have taken place within the preceding six months.

(4)   A licensee must advise a prospective user that an examination by a hearing instrument specialist is not an examination, diagnosis, or prescription by a physician licensed to practice medicine under chapter 47.

Section 40-25-120.   Upon a determination by the board that one or more of the grounds for discipline of a licensee exists, as provided for in Section 40-25-110 or 40-1-110, the board, in addition to the actions provided for in Section 40-1-120, may impose a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.

Section 40-25-130.   The board may deny licensure to an applicant based on the grounds for which the board may take disciplinary action against a licensee.

Section 40-25-140.   A license may be denied based on a person's prior criminal record only as provided for in Section 40-1-140.

Section 40-25-150.   A licensee who is under investigation for any of the disciplinary grounds provided for in Section 40-25-110 or Section 40-1-110 voluntarily may surrender his license to the board in accordance with Section 40-1-150.

Section 40-25-160.   A person aggrieved by an action of the board may seek review of the decision in accordance with Section 40-1-160.

Section 40-25-170.   A person found in violation of this chapter or regulations promulgated under this chapter may be required to pay costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of the case in accordance with Section 40-1-170.

Section 40-25-180.   All costs and fines imposed pursuant to this chapter must be paid in accordance with and are subject to the collection and enforcement provisions of Section 40-1-180.

Section 40-25-190.   Communications made in connection with an investigation or hearing relevant to a complaint against a licensee are privileged as provided for in Section 40-1-190.

Section 40-25-200.   A person who practices or offers to practice specializing in hearing aids in this State in violation of this chapter or a regulation promulgated under this chapter or who violates any other provision of this chapter or a regulation promulgated under this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

Section 40-25-210.   In addition to initiating a criminal proceeding for a violation of this chapter, the board also may seek civil and injunctive relief pursuant to Section 40-1-210.

Section 40-25-220.   (A)   A license must be issued independently either as a Hearing Instrument Specialist or Hearing Aid Fitter.

(B)   To be licensed by the board as a Hearing Instrument Specialist an individual must:

(1)   currently hold a valid certificate of board certification from the National Board for Certification in Hearing Instrument Sciences;

(2)   have an education equivalent to a four-year course in an accredited high school; and

(3)   have passed an examination approved by the board.

(C)   To be licensed by the board as a Hearing Aid Fitter an individual must:

(1)   have on file with the board the name and address of a currently licensed hearing instrument specialist who will be responsible for the supervision of the activities covered by the individual's hearing aid fitter license;

(2)   have an education equivalent to a four-year course in an accredited high school; and

(3)   have passed an examination approved by the board.

(D)   To be issued a temporary permit by the board an individual must complete an application and pay the required fee. A temporary permit is valid for twelve months and may be renewed for twelve months at the discretion of the board. During the temporary permit period, the permit holder must pass an examination approved by the board.

Section 40-25-230.   An individual applying for a license as a hearing instrument specialist or a hearing aid fitter must file a notarized application with the board; a renewal form is not required to be notarized. The appropriate fee and documentation of eligibility as prescribed by the board must accompany each application.

Section 40-25-240.   (A)   If an applicant satisfies all the licensure requirements provided for in this chapter, the board shall issue a license to the applicant. A license is a personal right and not transferable, and the issuance of a license is evidence that the person is entitled to all rights and privileges of a hearing instrument specialist or hearing aid fitter while the license remains current and unrestricted. However, the license is the property of the State and upon suspension or revocation immediately must be returned to the board.

(B)   A person licensed under this chapter must display the document in a prominent and conspicuous place in the person's place of business or place of employment.

(C)   Only a person licensed under this chapter may use the title 'Hearing Instrument Specialist' or 'Hearing Aid Fitter'.

(D)   A duplicate license may be issued by the board upon payment of the fee provided for in Section 40-25-50.

Section 40-25-250.   The board may issue a license to a person who holds a current unrestricted hearing instrument specialist license in another state if the standards for licensure in that state are at least the substantial equivalent to the licensing standards provided for in this chapter and the person satisfies any other requirements the board may prescribe including, but not limited to, continuing education requirements.

Section 40-25-260.   As a condition of license renewal, a hearing instrument specialist or hearing aid fitter must satisfactorily complete at least sixteen hours continuing education per license period. The requirement may be fulfilled by attending and participating in training activities approved by the board pursuant to regulations promulgated by the board.

Section 40-25-270.   (A)   A hearing instrument specialist license or hearing aid fitter license must be renewed biennially and expires on December 31 of the second year. A temporary permit expires twelve months from the date of issue and may, at the discretion of the board, be renewed for one twelve-month period.

(B)   To renew a license the individual shall:

(1)   pay a renewal fee as provided for in Section 40-25-50;

(2)   submit evidence of compliance with continuing education requirements as provided for in Section 40-25-260.

(C)   A license which was not renewed by December 31 is invalid and only may be reinstated upon receipt of a renewal application postmarked before February 1 and accompanied by the biennial license fee and the reinstatement fee.

Section 40-25-290.   The Board of Examiners for Hearing Instrument Specialists and Hearing Aid Fitters may promulgate regulations setting forth a code of ethics for persons licensed by the board.

Section 40-25-300.   This chapter does not apply to audiologists licensed under Chapter 67 or to physicians licensed under Chapter 47.

Section 40-25-350.   If a provision of this chapter or the application of a provision to a person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable."
B.   The powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities of the Department of Health and Environmental Control regarding the "Practice of Specializing in Hearing Aids Act" under Chapter 25, Title 40 of the 1976 Code are devolved upon the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, and the Commission for Hearing Aid specialists shall act as a professional and occupational licensing board for hearing aid specialists and fitters within the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.
C.   This section takes effect October 31, 2004./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. DAVENPORT explained the amendment.

Rep. KIRSH raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 2A was out of order in that it was not germane to the Bill.
SPEAKER WILKINS sustained the Point of Order and ruled the amendment out of order.

The Senate amendments, as amended, were then agreed to and the Bill was ordered returned to the Senate.

The Senate amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:

H. 4454 (Word version) -- Reps. Vaughn, Altman, Leach and Mahaffey: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-1-140, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FOR CERTAIN POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE THAT WERE CREATED TO OPERATE HOSPITALS ON A LOCAL OR REGIONAL BASIS, THE ABILITY TO CALL FOR OR CONDUCT ADVISORY REFERENDA REGARDING THEIR ACTIVITIES SHALL REST SOLELY WITH THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION AND THE GOVERNMENTAL BODIES WHICH APPOINT THE BOARD, INCLUDING A COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION.

Rep. HARRISON explained the Senate Amendments.

The Senate amendments were agreed to, and the Bill 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.

The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments:

S. 687 (Word version) -- Senator J. V. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 2, TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF ACCOUNTANTS, SO AS TO CONFORM THIS CHAPTER TO THE STATUTORY ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK OF CHAPTER 1, TITLE 40 FOR BOARDS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF ACCOUNTANTS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, REVISING THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD TO CONTAIN THREE RATHER THAN TWO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, CLARIFYING THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE OF ACCOUNTANTS, FURTHER SPECIFYING EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE, AUTHORIZING FEES FOR REGISTRATION OF ACCOUNTING FIRMS, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PEER REVIEW STANDARDS, INCREASING CRIMINAL PENALTIES, REVISING LICENSURE RENEWAL PROCEDURES, DELETING PROVISIONS FOR THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF ACCOUNTING PRACTITIONERS AND TO PROVIDE CERTAIN TRANSITION PROVISIONS.

S. 1126 (Word version) -- Senator Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-39-70, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PREMIUM SERVICE AGREEMENTS, TO CLARIFY PROVISIONS OF PREMIUM SERVICE CONTRACTS AND DISCLOSURES, INCLUDING RENEWALS; TO AMEND SECTION 38-39-80, RELATING TO PREMIUM SERVICE COMPANIES, TO REQUIRE CERTAIN REGULATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-39-90, RELATING TO CANCELLATION OF INSURANCE CONTRACTS BY PREMIUM SERVICE COMPANIES UPON DEFAULT, TO CLARIFY CERTAIN NOTICES TO INSUREDS.

The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up:

S. 1251 (Word version) -- Senator Land: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THAT PORTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 6 IN CALHOUN COUNTY FROM I-26 TO THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF ST. MATTHEWS, THE "O. ALEX HICKLIN, SR. MEMORIAL HIGHWAY" AND TO ERECT AN APPROPRIATE MARKER OR SIGN AT THE INTERSECTION OF OLD HIGHWAY 6 AND WILD ROSE ROAD CONTAINING THE WORDS "O. ALEX HICKLIN, SR. MEMORIAL HIGHWAY" IN RECOGNITION OF HIS MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TOWN OF ST. MATTHEWS, CALHOUN COUNTY, THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND THIS NATION, INCLUDING ESPECIALLY HIS DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE THEN HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.

Rep. OTT moved to adjourn debate on the Resolution until Thursday, May 27, which was agreed to.

The motion period was dispensed with on motion of Rep. SKELTON.

Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of amendments:

S. 720 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 59 TO TITLE 44 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE CATAWBA RIVER BASIN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE CATAWBA RIVER BASIN BI-STATE COMMISSION, AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR DUTIES, POWERS, AND FUNCTIONS.

Rep. COTTY moved to adjourn debate on the Bill until Thursday, May 27, which was agreed to.

The following Bill was taken up:

H. 5027 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, W. D. Smith, Merrill, Clemmons, Cooper, Altman, Barfield, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Edge, Gilham, Hayes, Herbkersman, Keegan, Limehouse, Witherspoon and Young: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE "UNIFORM AND FAIR GOLF COURSE VALUATION ACT OF 2004" BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-365 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF GOLF COURSE REAL PROPERTY IS DETERMINED FOR AD VALOREM TAX PURPOSES AND THE PROCEDURES WHICH APPLY WITH RESPECT TO THIS DETERMINATION.

Rep. COTTY moved to recommit the Bill to the Committee on Ways and Means, which was agreed to.

Rep. WALKER moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 27, which was adopted:

H. 4653 (Word version) -- Reps. W. D. Smith, Wilkins and Cotty: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ENACTING THE "SOUTH CAROLINA PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ACT OF 2004"; BY ADDING SECTION 59-63-205 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL ADOPT A STUDENT DISCIPLINE POLICY AND TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS; BY ADDING SECTION 59-28-230 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF A PARENT FAILS TO ATTEND A SCHOOL'S THIRD REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE CHILD'S ACADEMIC PROGRESS OR VIOLATION OF SCHOOL RULES, THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT, UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, MAY REQUEST THAT THE MAGISTRATE ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO COMPEL THE PRESENCE OF THE PARENT AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES; BY ADDING SECTION 59-28-240 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL DEVELOP IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR APPROPRIATE SCHOOL PERSONNEL WHO WORK WITH STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE AND THEIR PARENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 59-26-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DUTIES OF STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION SHALL ADOPT PROGRAM APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR STUDENTS PURSUING A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY PROGRAM IN INSTRUCTIONAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL SHALL COMPLETE TRAINING IN WORKING WITH STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE AND THEIR PARENTS; BY ADDING ARTICLE 6, CHAPTER 65, TITLE 59 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND EACH SCHOOL SHALL ADOPT A TRUANCY POLICY, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHALL ESTABLISH PROCEDURES TO ALLOW A STUDENT TO ENROLL IN ALTERNATIVE OR ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO PREVENT FURTHER TRUANCY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARENT RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS NONATTENDANCE PROBLEMS; TO AMEND SECTION 59-65-20, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO ENROLL A CHILD IN SCHOOL, SO AS TO INCREASE THE FINE FROM NOT MORE THAN FIFTY DOLLARS TO NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS; TO AMEND SECTION 59-65-50, RELATING TO NON ATTENDANCE REPORTED TO THE COURT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL NOTIFY STUDENTS AND PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OF STATE ATTENDANCE LAWS AND PENALTIES; TO PROVIDE THAT PARENTS MUST BE NOTIFIED OF CERTAIN ABSENCES AND SHALL WORK WITH THE DISTRICT TO FORMULATE AN INTERVENTION PLAN; TO PROVIDE FOR TRANSFER OF DOCUMENTS AND PLANS IF THE STUDENT TRANSFERS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR REFERRAL OF THE CASE TO THE SOLICITOR, UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, WHEN THE CHILD HAS TEN OR MORE UNLAWFUL ABSENCES; TO AMEND SECTION 59-65-60, RELATING TO THE COURT'S PROCEDURE UPON RECEIPT OF THE REPORT OF NONATTENDANCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FURTHER ACCUMULATION AFTER TEN UNLAWFUL ABSENCES MUST BE TOLLED UNTIL THE FAMILY COURT HEARING; TO PROVIDE THE TIMELINE AND PROCEDURE FOR REPORTING THE ABSENCES TO THE SOLICITOR, FILING THE COMPLAINT, SERVING THE COMPLAINT, AND HOLDING THE HEARING; TO PROVIDE FOR AN ATTENDANCE ORDER AND A REVISION OF THE INTERVENTION PLAN; TO PROVIDE THAT A PARENT OR GUARDIAN WHO FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE ATTENDANCE ORDER IS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES; TO PROVIDE WHEN THE COURT MAY DECLARE A CHILD A TRUANT, ADJUDICATE A CHILD AS A STATUS OFFENDER, AND SUBJECT A CHILD TO APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS OF LAW; AND TO PROVIDE FOR OPTIONS WHEN A CHILD IS FOUND TO BE A HABITUAL TRUANT; BY ADDING SECTION 14-1-240 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CHIEF JUDGE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES IN EACH CIRCUIT SHALL SCHEDULE AT LEAST TWO DAYS A MONTH FOR A JUDGE IN A FAMILY COURT TO HEAR TRUANCY CASES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-176, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL DRIVER'S LICENSE AND A SPECIAL RESTRICTED DRIVER'S LICENSE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF A STUDENT FAILS TO MEET THE EXPULSION REQUIREMENTS, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, WHO MAY SUSPEND THE STUDENT'S DRIVER'S LICENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 59-65-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CAUSE A CHILD TO ATTEND SCHOOL, SO AS TO INCREASE THE AGE UNTIL WHICH A CHILD SHALL ATTEND SCHOOL FROM SEVENTEEN TO EIGHTEEN; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 59-65-70 RELATING TO WHEN A COURT MAY DECLARE A CHILD DELINQUENT.

Rep. HARRISON moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 27, which was adopted:

H. 4869 (Word version) -- Rep. Harrison: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-11-760, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO A PERSON PARKING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE OWNER'S CONSENT AND THE REMOVAL OF THE VEHICLE, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THE OWNER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO POST A NOTICE ON HIS PROPERTY THAT PROHIBITS PARKING, AND TO DELETE A CODE REFERENCE; TO AMEND SECTION 29-15-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LIENS FOR REPAIRS OR STORAGE, SO AS TO REVISE THE PROCEDURES FOR EXECUTING LIENS FOR REPAIRS OR STORAGE OF VEHICLES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2525, RELATING TO REQUIRING A TOWING COMPANY THAT TOWS A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT ITS OWNER'S KNOWLEDGE TO NOTIFY A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT IT TOWED THE VEHICLE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT RECEIVES THIS NOTICE MUST CREATE A REPORT AND FURNISH THE TOWING COMPANY WITH ITS DOCUMENT NUMBER, AND PROVIDE THAT NOTIFICATION IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN TOWING IS DONE AT THE DIRECTION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-5630, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CERTAIN NOTICE THAT MUST BE PROVIDED TO OWNERS AND LIENHOLDERS OF VEHICLES THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "VEHICLE", TO REVISE THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE THAT MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE OWNERS AND LIENHOLDERS OF THE VEHICLES, TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS CERTAIN STORAGE COSTS TO BE RECOVERED FROM THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE VEHICLES, AND TO PROVIDE THAT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH TOWING AND STORAGE OF CERTAIN STOLEN VEHICLES MAY BE RECOVERED UPON THE COURT'S ORDER OF RESTITUTION; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-5635, RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TOWING PROCEDURES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN FEES MAY BE RECOVERED BY A TOWING OR STORAGE OPERATOR EVEN THOUGH HE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY A LIST DESCRIBING THE VEHICLES OR OTHER PROPERTY THE AGENCY HAS REQUESTED TO BE TOWED, TO REVISE THE AMOUNT OF STORAGE COSTS THAT MAY BE CHARGED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE TO NOTIFY OWNERS AND LIENHOLDERS OF VEHICLES, TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE TO ALLOW THE STORAGE FACILITY TO RELEASE CERTAIN ITEMS CONTAINED IN A STORED VEHICLE TO ITS OWNER, AND TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO FOLLOW WHEN THEY STORE VEHICLES ON THEIR PREMISES FOR SALE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-5640, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SALE OF UNCLAIMED VEHICLES AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THEIR SALE, SO AS TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL CHANGES, CHANGE A CODE REFERENCE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAGISTRATE SHALL NOTIFY CERTAIN PERSONS THAT THEY MAY CLAIM THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF A VEHICLE INSTEAD OF THE PROPRIETOR, OWNER, OR OPERATOR OF A STORAGE PLACE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-5850, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ATTACHMENT OF COLORED TAGS ON CERTAIN VEHICLES THAT ARE LEFT UNATTENDED ON A HIGHWAY OR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE COLORED TAG SHALL SERVE AS THE ONLY LEGAL NOTICE THAT THE VEHICLE WILL BE REMOVED TO A DESIGNATED PLACE TO BE SOLD IF THE VEHICLE IS NOT REMOVED WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, AND TO DELETE ALL PROVISIONS THAT RELATE TO NOTICE REQUIREMENTS BEFORE THE VEHICLE IS SOLD AND THE SALE OF THE VEHICLE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-19-840, RELATING TO REQUIRING AN OPERATOR OF A PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR GARAGING, REPAIRING, PARKING, OR STORING CERTAIN VEHICLES TO REPORT UNCLAIMED VEHICLES IN HIS POSSESSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE REPORT MAY BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE REPORTING PERIOD, BUT NOT AFTER THE PERIOD EXPIRES, AND TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "UNCLAIMED".

The following Joint Resolution was taken up:

S. 532 (Word version) -- Judiciary Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII-A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PERTAINING TO ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS AND BEVERAGES, SO AS TO REGULATE THEIR SALE IN CONTAINERS OF SUCH SIZE AS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution the yeas and nays were taken on the passage of the Joint Resolution, resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Altman                 Anthony                Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Cato
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Coates                 Cobb-Hunter
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Gilham                 Gourdine               Hagood
Harrell                Harrison               Herbkersman
Hinson                 Howard                 Huggins
Keegan                 Kennedy                Koon
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               McCraw                 McLeod
Merrill                J. M. Neal             Neilson
Owens                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            Rhoad                  Rice
Sandifer               Scarborough            Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Stille                 Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Viers                  Walker                 White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allen                  Bales                  Battle
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
R. Brown               Coleman                Emory
Freeman                Hayes                  J. Hines
M. Hines               Hosey                  Jennings
Kirsh                  Lloyd                  Martin
McGee                  Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             Ott                    Parks
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Scott
Simrill                J. E. Smith            Weeks
Whipper

So, the Joint Resolution was read second time and ordered to third reading.

Rep. DELLENEY moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Tuesday, June 1, which was adopted:

S. 548 (Word version) -- Senator Martin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-71-10, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MEMBERS OF CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM TORT LIABILITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY TO INCLUDE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS.

The following Bill was taken up:

S. 458 (Word version) -- Senators Kuhn, Giese, Leatherman, Ravenel, Waldrep, Martin, Grooms, Branton, Richardson, Fair, Verdin, Hayes, Thomas, Mescher and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 15-75-70 SO AS TO ALLOW A PERSON AFFILIATED WITH A SCHOOL TO BRING A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST A STUDENT WHO COMMITS ASSAULT AND BATTERY AGAINST THE PERSON; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-612, RELATING TO A STUDENT COMMITTING ASSAULT AND BATTERY AGAINST A PERSON AFFILIATED WITH A SCHOOL, SO AS TO CHANGE THE OFFENSE FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO A FELONY, AND TO ALLOW A PERSON AFFILIATED WITH A SCHOOL TO BRING A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST A STUDENT WHO COMMITS ASSAULT AND BATTERY AGAINST THE PERSON.

The Judiciary Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\MS\7346AHB04), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/ SECTION   1.   A. This SECTION may be cited as the "South Carolina Teacher Protection Act of 2004".
B.   Section 16-3-612 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 16-3-612.   (A)   For purposes of this section:

(1)     'Student' means a person currently enrolled in any a school.

(2)     'School' includes, but is not limited to, a public or private school that contains any grades of kindergarten through twelfth grade, a public or private colleges, universities college or university, and any vocational, technical, or occupational school.

(B)   A student who commits an assault and battery, other than one that is aggravated, on school grounds or at a school-sponsored event against any person affiliated with the school in an official capacity including, but not limited to, administrators, teachers, faculty, substitute teachers, teachers' assistants, student teachers, custodial staff, food service staff, volunteers, law enforcement officers, school bus drivers, school crossing guards, or other regularly assigned school-contracted persons is guilty of assault and battery against school personnel which is a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

A student who commits simple assault against a person affiliated with a school in an official capacity including, but not limited to, administrators, teachers, faculty, substitute teachers, teachers' assistants, student teachers, custodial staff, food service staff, volunteers, law enforcement officers, school bus drivers, school crossing guards, or other regularly assigned school-contracted persons when the offense occurs on school grounds or at a school sponsored event is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

(C)   A student who commits assault and battery, other than one that is aggravated, against a person affiliated with a school in an official capacity including, but not limited to, administrators, teachers, faculty, substitute teachers, teachers' assistants, student teachers, custodial staff, food service staff, volunteers, law enforcement officers, school bus drivers, school crossing guards, or other regularly assigned school-contracted persons when the offense occurs on school grounds or at a school sponsored event is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(D)   A student who commits assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature against a person affiliated with a school in an official capacity including, but not limited to, administrators, teachers, faculty, substitute teachers, teachers' assistants, student teachers, custodial staff, food service staff, volunteers, law enforcement officers, school bus drivers, school crossing guards, or other regularly assigned school-contracted persons when the offense occurs on school grounds or at a school sponsored event is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. A person is guilty of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature pursuant to the provisions of this subsection if the person intentionally commits an assault and battery which involves the use of a deadly weapon or results in serious bodily injury to the victim.

(E)   If a school official reports an incident pursuant to this section to any school principal, vice principal, assistant principal, or other school administrator, the school administrator shall report the incident to law enforcement for investigation.

(F)   Sentencing pursuant to this section must comply with the requirements of Article 15, Chapter 3, Title 16."
C.   Section 16-3-1535 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"(G)   At each proceeding, the summary court judge must inquire if the victim has been notified of the proceeding, if the victim is present at the proceeding, and if the victim desires to be heard at the proceeding."
D.   Section 16-3-1545 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"(N)   At each proceeding, the family court judge must inquire if the victim has been notified of the proceeding, if the victim is present at the proceeding, and if the victim desires to be heard at the proceeding."
E.   Chapter 25, Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 59-25-900.   A person affiliated with the school in an official capacity including, but not limited to, administrators, teachers, faculty, substitute teachers, teachers' assistants, student teachers, custodial staff, food service staff, volunteers, law enforcement officers, school bus drivers, school crossing guards, or other regularly assigned school-contracted persons who is:

(1)   the victim of a violation of Section 16-3-612 for which a student was convicted, adjudicated delinquent, or plead guilty or nolo contendere, and

(2)   injured as a result of the violation of Section 16-3-612 to the extent that his injury prevents him from returning to his former position within the school district, must be allowed to continue to participate in all retirement, insurance, and deferred compensation programs he was enrolled in at the time of the injury. The district shall continue to make the employer contributions on behalf of the injured employee."
F.   This section takes effect upon approval by the Governor and applies to offenses committed on or after the effective date.
SECTION   2.   A.   Section 20-1-15 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 327 of 1996, is amended to read:

"Section 20-1-15.   (A)   A marriage Any attempted or putative union between persons of the same sex is void ab initio and against the public policy of this State.

(B)   Public acts, records, judicial proceedings, licenses issued by another jurisdiction in contravention of subsection (A), or any other governmental recognition are of no legal force or effect, void ab initio, and will not be recognized by this State or its political subdivisions in accordance with the strong public policy of South Carolina.

(C)   Marriage in this State and its political subdivisions is exclusively defined as a union between one man and one woman."
B.   Article 1, Chapter 1, Title 20 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 20-1-17.   (A)   The recognition or extension by this State or its political subdivisions of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this State and its political subdivisions. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this State or its political subdivisions that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to:

(1)   prohibit the extension of specific benefits otherwise enjoyed by all persons, married or unmarried, to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes, including the extension of benefits conferred by any statute that is not expressly limited to married persons;

(2)   affect the validity of private agreements that are otherwise valid under the laws of this State.

(B)   any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, country, or other jurisdiction outside this State that extends the specific benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes must be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this State or its political subdivisions and must not be recognized by this State or its political subdivisions."
C.   This section takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
SECTION   3.   A.   Section 14-23-1040 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Part IV, Section 3, Act 678 of 1988, is further amended to read:

"Section 14-23-1040.   (A)   Before January 1, 2006, No a person is not eligible to hold the office of judge of probate who is not unless the person at the time of his election a citizen of the United States and of this State, has not attained the age of twenty-one years upon his election, has not become a qualified elector of the county in which he is to be a judge, and has not received a four-year bachelor's degree from an accredited post-secondary institution or if he has received no degree he must have four years' experience as an employee in a probate judge's office in this State.:

(1)   is a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State;

(2)   is twenty-one years of age;

(3)   is a qualified elector of the county in which he is to be a judge;

(4)   has graduated from high school or, if he has no degree, has four years' experience as a full time associate probate judge in a probate judge's office in this State; and

(5)   has not been convicted of a felony offense or an offense involving moral turpitude under the laws of this State, any other state, or the United States.

(B)   After December 31, 2005, through December 31, 2007, a person is not eligible to hold the office of judge of probate unless the person at the time of his election:

(1)   is a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State;

(2)   is twenty-one years of age;

(3)   is a qualified elector of the county in which he is to be a judge;

(4)   has obtained an degree from an accredited college or community college or, if he has no degree, has four years' experience as a full time associate probate judge in a probate judge's office in this State; and

(5)   has not been convicted of a felony offense or an offense involving moral turpitude under the laws of this State, any other state, or the United States.

(C)   After December 31, 2007, a person is not eligible to hold the office of judge of probate unless the person at the time of his election:

(1)   is a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State;

(2)   is twenty-one years of age;

(3)   is a qualified elector of the county in which he is to be a judge;

(4)   has obtained a four year bachelor's degree from an accredited post-secondary institution or, if he has no degree, has four years' experience as a full time associate probate judge in a probate judge's office in this State; and

(5)   has not been convicted of a felony offense or an offense involving moral turpitude under the laws of this State, any other state, or the United States.

(D)   Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a person holding the office of probate judge as of July 1, 2004, is deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this section to hold his current office and for the purposes of running for election or re-election. However, if a person deemed to be qualified for the office of probate judge pursuant to the provisions of this subsection is out of office for a term or a portion of a term before seeking election, the person shall satisfy the applicable requirements of this section to be qualified to run for office."
B.   Upon approval by the Governor, this section takes effect July 1, 2004.
SECTION   4.   A.   Chapter 17, Title 2 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 2-17-55.   It is unlawful for a state agency, authority, or department to directly or indirectly hire or retain an independent contractor as a lobbyist as defined in Section 2-17-10(13). The provisions of this section do not include foundations established by state-sponsored universities or institutions of higher education which do not receive appropriated funds on an annual basis."
B.   This section takes effect upon approval by the Governor /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. HARRISON explained the amendment.

Rep. HARRISON continued speaking.

Rep. HARRISON spoke in favor of the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. QUINN proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name COUNCIL\MS\7348AHB04):
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately number SECTION to read:
/ SECTION   ___.   Chapter 78, Title 15 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 15-78-210.   (A)   As used in this section:

(1)   'Teacher' means a:

(a)   licensed teacher, principal, administrator, or other educational professional who works on school grounds;

(b)   professional or non-professional employee who works on school grounds and has responsibility for maintaining order, discipline, or ensuring safety; and

(c)   school employee who, in an emergency, is called upon to maintain order, discipline, or to ensure safety.

(2)   'School' means a public or private kindergarten, public or private elementary school, public or private middle school or junior high, public or private high school, vocational school, secondary school, or home school that includes students not related by blood to the operator.

(3)   'Student' means a person enrolled at a school in the State of South Carolina.

(B)   A teacher may bring a civil action against a student who commits a criminal offense against the teacher if the offense occurs on school grounds or at a school sponsored event. Nothing in this subsection is intended to limit the civil remedies available to another party as a result of the same criminal act.

(c)   Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no teacher has civil liability to a student or a party acting in the interest of a student for an act or omission by the teacher that occurs while the teacher is acting on behalf of the school if the:

(1)   teacher was acting within the scope of the teacher's employment;

(2)   actions of the teacher violated no state, local, or federal law including regulations set forth by the individual district or school;

(3)   acts or omissions were not the result of wilful or intentional conduct or gross negligence;

(4)   acts or omissions were not the result of the teacher operating a motor vehicle or watercraft; and

(5)   actions of the teacher do not constitute a violation of the student's civil rights." /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. QUINN explained the amendment.

Rep. G. M. SMITH raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 2 was out of order in that it was not germane to the Bill.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE W. D. SMITH overruled the Point of Order.

Rep. QUINN continued speaking.
Rep. QUINN spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. QUINN continued speaking.

Rep. HARRISON moved that the House recur to the Morning Hour, which was agreed to.

Further proceedings were interrupted by the House recurring to the Morning Hour, the pending question being consideration of Amendment No. 2.

Rep. LEACH, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 1255 (Word version) -- Senator Land: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE INTERCHANGE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 95 AND SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 521 IN CLARENDON COUNTY THE "BEN G. ALDERMAN, JR. INTERCHANGE" AND TO ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS INTERCHANGE CONTAINING THE WORDS "BEN G. ALDERMAN, JR. INTERCHANGE".
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. LEACH, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 1257 (Word version) -- Senators Setzler, Alexander, Anderson, Branton, Courson, Cromer, Drummond, Elliott, Fair, Ford, Giese, Glover, Gregory, Grooms, Hawkins, Hayes, Hutto, Jackson, Knotts, Kuhn, Land, Leatherman, Leventis, Malloy, Martin, Matthews, McConnell, McGill, Mescher, Moore, O'Dell, Patterson, Peeler, Pinckney, Rankin, Ravenel, Reese, Richardson, Ritchie, Ryberg, Sheheen, Short, J. V. Smith, Thomas, Verdin and Waldrep: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE INTERCHANGE ON I-20 AT EXIT 44 IN HONOR OF THE LATE SENATOR F. BEASLEY SMITH WHO SERVED HIS COUNTY AND STATE WITH DISTINCTION.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

The following was introduced:

H. 5375 (Word version) -- Reps. Scarborough, Altman, Hagood, Umphlett and Hinson: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE BILLIE JEAN SCHRECK, FOR HER OUTSTANDING, DEDICATED SERVICE AS A LEGISLATIVE AIDE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TO EXTEND BEST WISHES FOR MUCH HAPPINESS UPON HER UPCOMING MARRIAGE AND MOVE TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, AND TO WISH HER SUCCESS IN ALL OF HER FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5376 (Word version) -- Reps. Harvin and G. M. Smith: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND JODY WEAVER AND LIEUTENANT DAVID JONES, OF EAST CLARENDON MIDDLE SCHOOL IN CLARENDON COUNTY, FOR THEIR RAPID RESPONSE AND BRAVERY IN SAVING STUDENT JOSHUA LLOYD FROM CHOKING.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5377 (Word version) -- Reps. Barfield, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Koon, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stewart, Stille, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Umphlett, Vaughn, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE SINCERE APPRECIATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO DR. EVAN COHEN OF LEXINGTON FOR HIS SERVICE AS CHIROPRACTOR OF THE WEEK TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY EVERY WEDNESDAY DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND TO RECOGNIZE HIS SERVICE AS THE 2003-04 PRESIDENT AND GOLF COMMITTEE CHAIR OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5378 (Word version) -- Reps. Parks, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Koon, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stewart, Stille, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Umphlett, Vaughn, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR MR. WILLIAM ALLEN MCLEAN FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE AND VOLUNTEER CONTRIBUTIONS TO CITIZENS IN GREENWOOD COUNTY.

The Resolution was adopted.

Rep. ALTMAN moved that the House recede until 2:00 p.m., which was agreed to.

At 2:00 p.m. the House resumed, the SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE in the Chair.

The question of a quorum was raised.
A quorum was later present.

The SPEAKER ordered the following veto printed in the Journal:

May 25, 2004
The Honorable David H. Wilkins, Speaker
South Carolina House of Representatives
508 Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am returning H.4925 , R.333, the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 General Appropriations Act, with the vetoes detailed in Sections II, III, and IV. My vetoes are based on two primary objections: (1) what I believe is a constitutional requirement to fully and immediately pay off the $155 million deficit and (2) the danger of using all $90 million of uncertified "Maybank Money" for core agency services.
Also, I am submitting to you for your consideration my observations on how this appropriations act measures up against the challenges I set forth to the General Assembly in my Executive Budget for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. These observations are meant as constructive criticism and constitute what I hope will be an annual effort by the Governor of South Carolina to work with the General Assembly in assessing progress toward improving management and accountability in state government. The stated mission of my Executive Budget was to present to the General Assembly a balanced state budget that, without raising taxes, provides essential services to the citizens of South Carolina and increases our state's investments in the priority areas of education, health care, economic development, law enforcement and corrections. In order to measure performance and lay the foundation for assessing whether that mission had been fulfilled, my Executive Budget set forth 11 specific budgetary goals. As the analysis below indicates, the General Appropriations Act presented to me accomplishes some of the goals, but falls short of others. Regardless of the points on which we agree or disagree, I look forward to working with you and members of the General Assembly in efforts to create a more efficient and accountable state government.
Set forth below are the 11 specific budgetary goals presented in my Executive Budget.

1.   Submit a balanced budget without raising taxes, tapping reserves, raiding trust   funds, borrowing against the future or using fiscal gimmicks.
This goal has been partially met in that this appropriations act is a balanced budget that does not raise taxes and does not raid trust funds or tap reserves, and, in fact, provides for a $53 million tax decrease. On the other hand, however, it also appropriates $90 million for core agency services of funds that the Board of Economic Advisors has refused to certify - funds that we do not know will materialize. The uncertainty of when, or even if, these monies will materialize makes it nearly impossible for agencies appropriated those funds to properly budget. Tying these funds to basic, critical services enabled the Legislature to use certified funds for its "wish list" budgeting. I am so concerned about the precedent regarding the use of this uncertified money that I would have vetoed the entire proviso that appropriates these funds, but for the fact that this action would cause unintended harm to the clients of some very crucial agencies.
Fiscal Gimmickry
It appears that one form of fiscal gimmickry was narrowly avoided in this appropriations act. The conference report adopted the House amendment that added an additional $1,050,000 for other operating expenses within DHEC's budget. Early in the appropriation process, the Ways and Means Committee's recommended appropriation bill and the House adopted appropriation bill funded through the sale of surplus land in Proviso 73.7, a total of $1,050,000 to DHEC delineated as $500,000 for "Operating Expenses" and $550,000 for "Fire Safety Equipment." I am told that the Fire Safety Equipment line was a pass-through for a fire truck for a local municipality. Such political pass-through's have no business being in the state's budget, and if the appropriation had remained as such, I would have vetoed the funding for it.
However, subsequent to the BEA's revised revenue estimate, the House further amended the bill deleting Proviso 73.7 and moving the funding to Part IA of the bill. This amendment appropriated the entire $1,050,000 to DHEC for "Operating Expenses." Therefore, I can only conclude that an appropriation was not made for Fire Safety Equipment, and a veto is not necessary in this instance. However, let me make it very clear that it is my understanding from this action by the General Assembly of specifically removing any designation in the appropriation bill for DHEC "Fire and Safety Equipment," that DHEC is not authorized to expend these funds in this manner.
2.   Improve jobs and economic growth.
I want to commend the General Assembly for reversing course on a potentially damaging proposal in the budget process. In the House, there was a proposal to reduce the amount dedicated to the Job Development Tax Credits. These credits are refunds pledged to businesses that have brought significant investments and jobs to the State. Capping those credits would have significantly hampered our efforts through the Department of Commerce to attract jobs to South Carolina. We applaud the Senate for removing this proposal and the Conference Committee for rejecting it from the final version of the bill.
On the other hand, as of the date of this letter, our state's high top marginal individual income tax rate has still not been reduced. Economic studies show that the income tax-not the sales tax or property tax-has the most negative impact on jobs and economic growth. That is a very ominous economic reality given that South Carolina's top individual income tax rate is 7%-more than 45% higher than the Southeastern average. The Tax Foundation, a non-profit organization, ranks South Carolina's individual income tax desirability, in terms of promoting economic growth, as only 42nd in the nation - and dead last in the Southeast.
We have called for a cut in the income tax, both as a means of stimulating job growth and encouraging small business growth in South Carolina. Today, if a corporation comes to South Carolina, the highest possible income tax rate paid is 5%, but small business owners, that comprise 97% of our state's business, pay a rate of 7%. The plan we proposed with the House leadership would ultimately redress that imbalance, and we applaud the House for moving this important piece of legislation. We redouble our call to the Senate to embrace it as well.
3.   Require all state agencies to realize the administrative efficiencies already attained   by the Governor's Office and the cabinet agencies during 2003.
The appropriations act does incorporate our proposed reductions on travel, registration, meals and telephone expenses. However, we believe more can be done to reduce those costs. Just last week, for instance, the Legislative Audit Council (LAC) issued an analysis of the State Department of Education's $4.1 million travel budget providing examples of hotel reimbursement rates for employees of the State Department of Education well above the federal reimbursement rates. The LAC report added that our state has no limits on these reimbursements unlike most states and the federal government. Despite our efforts within the cabinet (that comprises only 16% of state agencies), many other agencies have not joined us limiting these costs.
At the request of the administration, the Senate amended Proviso 72.26 to limit such travel reimbursements to the federal guidelines followed by many organizations, and I applaud them for doing so. Unfortunately, this common-sense proposal was eliminated in the conference committee despite repeated recommendation by the LAC to impose some maximum rate restrictions. We would urge the full General Assembly to adopt such a cap on travel reimbursements in the upcoming year.
4.   Decrease the size of state government by consolidating agencies, boards and   commissions, and strengthen the cabinet form of government.
My Executive Budget laid out a comprehensive proposal to restructure state government, from reducing the number of Constitutional officers to consolidating agencies that have overlapping, duplicative, or similar missions. My Executive Budget projected very modest first year savings of approximately $26 million in administrative and other expenses. While the savings would have become even more pronounced over time, we believe that an even larger benefit would have been improved delivery of services to the public. Ultimately, our belief is that a government that is more accountable is more effective and efficient.
While we appreciate the efforts of some members of Senate Judiciary and their restructuring subcommittee for diligently tackling the issue, the result is that even the modest compromise proposal has been unable to pass the full body. We applaud the House for moving forward on a bill to create the Department of Administration to help run the Executive Branch more efficiently. With some time remaining in the legislative session, I also urge the Senate to take up and even build on the House proposal. However, the reality is that to offer better services to the clients of our state and reduce our cost of government to below its current cost of 130% of the national average level, we absolutely must retool our government's antiquated structure for the 21st century.
5.   Appropriate funds based on a more rational assessment of government programs'   relative importance.
In some instances this appropriations act accomplishes the goal of appropriating funds based on a more rational assessment of government programs, whereas in other cases it falls short. Below we list examples of each.
State Department of Education
Once again our aim is to direct our resources to front line services and core functions. We applaud the steps taken by the General Assembly toward that end in this budget. For example, this appropriations act accepted our proposal for a targeted 10% cut in the State Department of Education's central administrative budget and the redirection of those funds toward the base student cost. This move begins the effort of shifting more of the education dollars toward what we call the front lines of education - classroom spending and teacher pay.
Department of Social Services
On the other hand, the appropriated funding for the Department of Social Services fails in identifying an agency's needs and providing necessary funding for it. With the FY 2004-2005 appropriation of $78 million, DSS has sustained a 35% reduction in its budget since FY 2001-2002. In FY 2003-2004, DSS took several steps to reduce the size of the agency and operate within its budget. Specifically, there were buy-outs, a reduction in force, and a full two-week mandatory furlough for every employee within the agency to avoid running a deficit. In total, DSS has reduced its workforce by 1,300 employees since FY 2001-2002, roughly 27%. Meanwhile, the caseloads have increased. In the food stamp program, for example, the caseload has risen from 305,000 clients in FY 2001-2002 to 485,000 clients today, an increase of 59%.
As I pointed out in my Executive Budget, the Department of Social Services' core mission is to ensure the safety and health of children who cannot protect themselves. This appropriation act provides roughly $3 million less than I proposed. But the funding disconnect is actually more pronounced since my Executive Budget included $3.6 million in savings from agency consolidations. The sum total is a $6.6 million difference between our beliefs in what this agency needs and what the House and Senate conferees have proposed. This I believe is wrong and dangerous. The General Assembly now expects DSS to assume those savings without having approved a restructuring bill that would merge DSS with the Commission for the Blind, the Commission for Vocational Rehabilitation, and the Office of Aging. This also completely contradicts our restructuring proposal that would find efficiencies in operations and case management. Those savings are nearly impossible to achieve without passage of some sort of restructuring legislation.
The challenge with DSS lies in the fact that nearly all of the services provided by the agency are either federally or state mandated. For example, with regard to adoption services, I proposed increasing the adoption incentive from $250 to $1,500 to help ease the legal expenses of adoptive parents, and we are grateful that the General Assembly included this funding in this appropriations act. However, adoption caseworkers have been reduced by 29% and could be further reduced as a result of DSS' underfunding in this appropriations act. We are very concerned that DSS will be unable to make any progress in reducing the average time for adoption to comply with the federal requirement of two years.
In addition, 20% of the DSS budget has been funded by the uncertified "Maybank Money." As stated previously, the Board of Economic Advisors refused to certify this revenue, in large part, because the funds cannot be counted on to be collected. The General Assembly took precautions to protect a few agencies in the event the funds did not come in as anticipated. However, it did not include DSS as one of those agencies despite the fact that DSS faces mandatory requirements, including the development of the Child Support Enforcement System. (DSS currently will pay a $10 million federal fine for non-compliance in FY 04-05 in this regard.)
We will work closely with DSS to ensure that it can still accomplish its core mission without further straining its resources or its workforce. In the event that the full "Maybank Money" for its funding does not actually materialize, we fear that the agency will be forced to run a deficit for Fiscal Year 2004-2005.
Higher Education
This appropriations act also highlights a call to reform that has gone unanswered in two legislative sessions. One of my first acts as governor was to prohibit all cabinet agencies from hiring contract lobbyists at the expense of the taxpayers to reside in the State House and lobby for even more tax dollars. During my State of the State address, I called on the General Assembly to enact a prohibition on taxpayer-funded contract lobbyists. Legislation was introduced last year and has languished in the House Judiciary Committee ever since. The result of this inaction for the taxpayer has been noticeable-especially in the area of higher education funding.
In my Executive Budget, I wrote that "a weak CHE also leads to unnecessary and damaging politicization of how higher education dollars are allocated. In South Carolina, colleges and universities hire lobbyists at taxpayer expense to make their case to the General Assembly...instead of following the course most responsible to the taxpayers-that is, making their funding requests through the CHE." Though this budget includes our proposed cuts to agencies and higher education institutions for the amount of their contracts with lobbyists, the additional funding allocated to those same institutions clearly spells out the need for higher education reform.
In this appropriations act, seven of the eight higher education institutions that employ taxpayer-funded contract lobbyists received a total of $6.4 million in new money - an average of more than $900,000 per school. On the other hand, the 20 schools that had no registered lobbyists had their budgets reduced by an average of $650,000 per school.
Clearly, we have a system that is in need of change. First, we should enact a ban on taxpayer-funded contract lobbyists and, second, we need to create a Commission on Higher Education that provides leadership and oversight of how funds go to higher education. Without these needed changes, we will continue to see colleges use our tax dollars to leverage for more dollars in Columbia through a process based more on politics rather than merit.
Executive Budget line-items adopted
In the past, agencies have often been funded or reduced based upon across-the-board formulas that do not recognize that some government activities are more important than others. In my budget, we laid out hundreds of funding increases and targeted cuts, and I applaud the Legislature for accepting the following recommendations which will provide over $125 million in savings to the taxpayers in the upcoming budget year.
* Reductions in most agencies' travel and meal costs   $6,733,660
* Reduction in most agencies' phone related costs   $6,232,966
* Sale of state-owned surplus land   $31,691,250
* Sale of one-third of the state fleet   $33,785,083
* Increased contribution from Santee Cooper   $13,000,000
* Use of select agencies' surplus cash   $ 7,500,000
* Increase in funding to employee's health insurance   $13,392,758
* Full funding of the Conservation Land Bank   $10,000,000
* Reduction of five agencies' fees for contract lobbyists   $ 192,000
* Funding for Pathways for Prosperity   $ 1,000,000
* SDE-reduction in administration moved to classrooms

$ 1,262,396
* SDE-other program savings moved to classrooms   $11,228,996
* DHHS-savings from the reduction of PDL limitations

$ 5,000,000
* DAODAS-rent savings   $ 222,288
* DAODAS-elimination of the DARE program   $ 225,000
* DMH-savings from outsourcing pharmacy services   $ 1,112,800
* DMH-operating savings from closing State Hospital   $ 5,300,000
* Commerce-sale of their fractional jet   $ 750,000
* Commerce-savings from reduction in staff   $ 1,000,000
* DJJ-health care savings   $ 600,000
* DJJ-savings from IT consulting   $ 1,500,000
* DJJ-new funds for the expansion of a wilderness camp

$ 754,540
* DMV-savings in information technology   $ 1,800,000
* DMV-savings from outsourcing license plates   $ 1,500,000
* DMV-savings from reducing middle management   $ 450,000
* DMV-savings from charging for the CDL test   $ 170,000
* DMV-savings from reducing hours in underutilized offices

$ 901,000
* LLR-savings from consolidating office space   $ 263,205
* Forestry-savings from closing the Field Trial Area   $ 30,000
* Gov's office-reduction in funds to the mining council

$ 3,427
* DNR-savings related to the Wildlife magazine   $ 410,000
* DHEC-savings related to radiological monitoring   $ 100,000
* DHEC-saving from pool inspections   $ 213,000
* DHEC-reduction to Coastal Zone education   $ 69,639
* DSS-reduction to the CR Neal Center   $ 100,000
* DSS-funding for the restoration of adoption incentives

$ 575,000
I commend the General Assembly for adopting so many of our specific proposals in this budget. However, with very few exceptions, all of the specific programmatic cuts and savings from efficiencies were suggestions from my Executive Budget. As we will undoubtedly be facing another challenging budget year, I hereby encourage the General Assembly to follow the administration's lead by next year suggesting their own efficiencies that can be reached, redundancies that can be reduced, and specific programs that can be eliminated so that we may best allocate our resources to our core services.
6.   Fund Medicaid with recurring dollars at a level that maintains core health care   benefits for the poor, elderly and disabled.
The use of non-recurring dollars for Medicaid was virtually eliminated and the program is at one of its lowest level of annualizations in a decade-putting this critical government program on a much sounder financial footing. The General Assembly is to be commended for this accomplishment.
7.   Protect and improve K-12 education by increasing the amount appropriated for the   base student cost.
Significant progress was made in the appropriations act toward this goal. Reductions made in the agency's administration and lottery funds were used to help increase the Base Student Cost by $119 million, or 6.2% above this year's level of funding. In fact, as stated in Proviso 1.4, this budget provides for an average expenditure of $8,623 per student for the coming year.
8.   Honor obligations made in prior years (e.g., begin repayment to the Barnwell   Cleanup Fund, address the FY 01-02 deficit, fund the employer portion of the State   Health Plan and commence funding of the Conservation Land Bank).
Unconstitutional Deficit
This appropriations act makes a significant down payment towards eliminating the unconstitutional $155 million deficit from Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Since this deficit had, at best, been dealt with by "not dealing with it" as one legislative leader said, I am pleased that this budget does allocate almost $90 million of this year's anticipated surplus towards reducing our deficit. However, I strongly believe that we are constitutionally bound to apply more of the surplus to eliminate the deficit.
Moreover, this appropriations act clearly shows the need for passage of the pending Fiscal Discipline Act (which has passed both the House and the Senate and the competing versions are now being reconciled by those bodies), adding General Fund Reserve funds so that an immediate payment of $139 million will be made toward the $155 million unconstitutional deficit. My feelings concerning the immediate need for the remaining $16 million will be discussed later.
Trust Funds
The General Assembly should certainly be applauded for fully funding the Conservation Land Bank. As this is the first year of the bank's existence, allowing full funding will set an important historical precedent that I'm hopeful will be followed for generations.

In addition, there is the matter of restoring the constitutionally-mandated General Reserve funds, the hundreds of millions raided from trust funds over the past few years, underfunding our State Health Plan by over $100 million, and diverting monies from the Insurance Reserve Fund - to the point where now approximately $450 million is needed - over and above the $155 million deficit - in order to fully restore proper fiscal order to South Carolina government (see breakdown below).
Additional Past Due Obligations
Monies Taken from Trust Funds $187 million
Monies Diverted from the Insurance Reserve Fund   $28 million
Reduction of State Health Plan Reserve Fund         $135 million
Reduction to the General Reserve Fund           $100 million
Total   $450 million
In my Executive Budget, we made a relatively small $5 million allocation to begin restoring the funding to the Barnwell Trust Fund. The General Assembly certainly recognizes this debt, and, in fact, makes a strong commitment to such in Proviso 72.62, which declares the following intent of the Legislature:
to "begin to restore funding to the Extended Care Maintenance Fund [a/k/a The Barnwell Trust Fund] as defined in Section 13-7-10 by appropriating $5,000,000 each year until such time as amount in the Fund is restored to the FY 2000-01 level, plus interest."
It is worth noting, however, this is the very same provision that appeared in last year's appropriations act, with the only change being to the year. It is unfortunate that in spite of this stated "intent," once hundreds of million in new monies became available, neither body acted on their intent to restore even $5 million in funds. I am not sure how we can turn intent into action, but I am concerned that we missed a great opportunity this year to do so. Our budget next year will again make a similar proposal, and I would hope the Legislature will both intend to take on our challenge and act accordingly.
9.   Begin the process of privatizing non-core governmental functions.
This process has now been started in a significant way. This budget embraces our proposal of selling off unused real estate assets, reducing the size of the state-owned fleet in exchange for leasing some vehicles, allowing a private vendor to operate the state's school bus system, and potentially privatizing health care services at the Department of Corrections. While many of these proposals are linked to study groups, I am hopeful that we will begin to turn these ideas into action in the coming months of the new fiscal year.
10.   Apply all FY 04-05 revenues that exceed the current two percent revenue growth   projection by the Board of Economic Advisors (BEA) to reduce the FY 01-02 deficit   and further address the problem of annualizations.
This goal was not met. This appropriations act increases state spending by $225 million dollars-a 4.4% increase. This increase occurred in spite of a BEA estimate of 2% revenue growth for the next fiscal year and the agreement by the members of the Budget and Control Board to hold the increase in spending to 3% until such time as the FY 2001-2002 deficit has been paid in full and the General Reserve Fund has been replenished (neither condition has yet been met).
11.   Reduce reliance on one-time funding for recurring costs (annualizations).
This goal was not met. Approximately $315 million of the General Appropriations Act is based upon one-time revenue; specifically, $132.8 million in nonrecurring Part IA appropriations, $90 million in nonrecurring Department of Revenue enforced collections, $11.8 million from tobacco de-allocation, and $86 million in surplus lottery funds. In my Executive Budget, annualizations were reduced further still, from $235 million to $144 million. The annualizations in my Executive Budget would have been further reduced to $21 million with the benefit of the additional $123 million in recurring money for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 recently recognized by the BEA.

The South Carolina Constitution requires the General Assembly "to insure that annual expenditures of state government [do] not exceed annual state revenue." Article X, Section 7 (a). The $155 million deficit from FY 01-02 is clearly unconstitutional. Our Constitution establishes two reserve accounts to prevent and cure deficits. Funds can be withdrawn from the General Reserve Fund "only for the purpose of covering operating deficits of state government." Article III, Section 36 (A). There is a constitutional requirement that the General Reserve Fund be restored not only from future revenues over three years, but also "out of funds accumulating in excess of annual operating expenditures." Article III, Section 36 (A). Thus, the Constitution mandates that any surplus revenue from FY 03-04 must be placed in the General Reserve Fund for application toward the FY 01-02 budgetary general fund deficit. Instead of complying with the Constitution, the Appropriations Act presented to me applies only $89,416,201 of the $125 million surplus toward the deficit. The General Assembly spends the remaining $35,583,799 of surplus. In our view, the Constitution requires that $105,592,935 of the surplus be applied toward the deficit, which would have completely eliminated it prior to the closing of this year's books. As a result of the General Assembly's failure to apply the constitutionally mandated amount of the surplus, a $16 million deficit still exists.
We are concerned that the General Appropriations Act presented to me is subject to legal challenge as a result of the unconstitutional use of the anticipated surplus. Accordingly, in order to comply with the South Carolina Constitution, I must veto the appropriation of certified funds in an amount equal to the remaining deficit. Doing so will cause me to veto many programs that have merit and that I even support - the reality is just that I am constitutionally mandated to sign a balanced budget into law and cannot ignore the pre-existing problems associated with an unconstitutional deficit looming over us. The calculation on the remaining deficit is calculated as such:
FY 2001-2002 Deficit   $154,892,534
Less General Reserve Fund   $-49,299,599
Less Surplus for Deficit   $-89,416,201

Remaining Deficit   $16,176,734

For that reason, I have set forth below the specific vetoes that, in the aggregate, void the appropriation of $16,277,651 in certified funds:

Veto 1   Part IA, Section 1, Department of Education, Division of Professional   Development and School Quality, page 2, Other Operating Expenses,   $298,030.
I am vetoing this item from the Division of Professional Development and School Quality which supports the accreditation function of the State Department of Education (SDE) because this function was found to be duplicative by a recent report by the Legislative Audit Council (LAC). The LAC found that the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools also accredits schools in South Carolina, and, therefore, the resources dedicated to this function by the SDE should be decreased. I believe any education dollars which can be reduced from administrative areas should ultimately be redirected to our classrooms.
Veto 2   Part IA, Section 4, John De La Howe School, Administration, page 21, Other   Personal Service, $1,952.
Since there were no reductions in the school's budget related to the travel and phone reductions taken by other agencies, I am vetoing this item. This decrease will also make a small reduction in the extraordinarily high per pupil cost at the school. As indicated in my Executive Budget, the school has a total budget of over $4 million, 98 employees and began the year with only 65 full-time students. I also look forward to the recommendations from the John de la Howe Study Committee regarding improved ways to use the 1,200 acre campus in serving the children of our State.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 3   Part IA, Section 4, John de la Howe School, Administration, page 21, Other   Operating Expenses, $10,181.
Since there were no reductions in the school's budget related to the travel and phone reductions taken by other agencies, I am vetoing this item. This decrease will also make a small reduction in the extraordinarily high per pupil cost at the school. As indicated in my Executive Budget, the school has a total budget of over $4 million, 98 employees and began the year with only 65 full-time students. I also look forward to the recommendations from the John de la Howe Study Committee regarding improved ways to use the 1,200 acre campus in serving the children of our State.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 4   Part IA, Section 4, John De La Howe School, Education, page 21, Other   Operating Expenses, $15,076.
Since there were no reductions in the school's budget related to the travel and phone reductions taken by other agencies, I am vetoing this item. This decrease will also make a small reduction in the extraordinarily high per pupil cost at the school. As indicated in my Executive Budget, the school has a total budget of over $4 million, 98 employees and began the year with only 65 full-time students. I also look forward to the recommendations from the John de la Howe Study Committee regarding improved ways to use the 1,200 acre campus in serving the children of our State.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 5   Part IA, Section 5F, Coastal Carolina University, Education and General, Unrestricted, page 36, Other Operating Expenses, $500,000.
As I stated in my veto message for the Life Sciences Act, S.560, R. 212, South Carolina is confronted with a lack of any central coordination of higher education spending. What we have asked for is to simply follow the process set forth by the General Assembly in enacting new programs at any of the higher education institutions around the state. Current law provides that "[n]o new program may be undertaken by any public institution of higher education without the approval of the [Commission on Higher Education]." (S.C. Code Ann. Section 59-103-35) Clearly the General Assembly intended to lessen the political nature of higher education spending by establishing a process by which expansion of higher education could be done in a measured and efficient manner.
Furthermore, as indicated in Veto 9, I believe institutions of higher education should utilize the established orderly process for the approval of funding for new projects. It is for these reasons that I am vetoing this item.
Veto 6   Part IA, Section 5G, Francis Marion University, Education and General,   Unrestricted, page 38, Omega Project, $56,147.
I am vetoing this item as the funds appropriated are used for voter registration efforts in the region and this is unrelated to the core mission of the university. This veto is consistent with my Executive Budget which proposed no funding for this program in FY 2004-2005. Additionally, I believe that this type of expansion of mission, particularly outside the education area, stretches our resources and ultimately weakens the overall higher education mission. It is for these reasons that I am vetoing this item.
Veto 7   Part IA, Section 5MB, Area Health Education Consortium, Consortium, General, page 65, Other Personal Services, $42,330.
I am vetoing this item which funds a small portion of AHEC's administrative services because, as explained in my Executive Budget, the agency should be able to reduce the operating overhead of the central office since a large part of its function is to pass through funds to the regional centers and teaching hospitals.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 8   Part IA, Section 5N, Technical and Comprehensive Education Bd,   Instructional Programs, page 67, Florence Darlington - Operating,   $500,000.
I am vetoing this funding for equipment for the Entrepreneurial Center at the technical school. Senate Bill 1044 was recently enacted for the purpose of allowing the school to enter into a public-private partnership; however, the legislation did not estimate a fiscal impact to the state budget nor was one intended when I signed this legislation into law. Midlands Technical College is also pursuing a similar public-private partnership pursuant to recently enacted legislation but will use private dollars to finance the development project. I believe that Florence-Darlington can and should do the same.
Furthermore, as indicated in Veto 9, I believe institutions of higher education should utilize the established orderly process for the approval of funding for new projects. It is for these reasons that I am vetoing this item.
Veto 9   Part IA, Section 5N, Technical and Comprehensive Education Bd,   Instructional Programs, page 67, Trident Tech - Culinary Arts, $775,000.
As I stated in my veto message for the Life Sciences Act, S.560, R.212, South Carolina is confronted with a lack of any central coordination of higher education spending. What we have asked for is to simply follow the process set forth by the General Assembly for enacting new programs at any of the higher education institutions around the state. Current law provides that no "new program may be undertaken by any public institution of higher education without the approval of the [Commission on Higher Education]." S.C. Code Ann. Section 59-103-35. Clearly the General Assembly intended to lessen the political nature of higher education spending by establishing a process by which expansion of higher education could be done in a measured and efficient manner. Though there is merit to the idea of establishing a culinary arts program at Trident Tech, we should at least allow the one agency in the state that the General Assembly empowered with the authority to review these proposals to make such a recommendation.
By contrast, however, I am allowing the $395,000 appropriation for the Culinary Arts program at the University of Charleston to go forward. The University has worked diligently to seek the concurrence of their faculty, administration and Board of Trustees regarding this program. Those approvals have been secured. Furthermore, the request was submitted to the Commission on Higher Education where it has been received positively and is awaiting final approval. This orderly process is how the approval system should work.
Veto 10   Part IA, Section 6, Educational Television Commission, Program and Services,   Agency Services, General Support and Services, page 73, Other Operating   Expenses, $184,144.
I am vetoing this item because this agency's total funding from the state (including lottery) was increased by approximately 7% in this appropriation bill. As stated earlier, since I am left with little choice but to free up a sufficient amount of funds to repay our state's unconstitutional deficit, I am, therefore, vetoing this item.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 11   Part IA, Section 6, Educational Television Commission, Program and Services,   Cultural and Performing Arts, page 73, Other Operating Expenses, $117,028.
I am vetoing this item because my Executive Budget indicates a similar monetary amount is spent for the department's vehicle maintenance shop. It is my understanding that no other television station in the state owns and operates a vehicle maintenance shop and I do not find it to be a core function of this agency. As part of our overall proposal to privatize the state fleet, we think that these savings could be realized.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 12   Part IA, Section 8, Dept of Health and Human Services, Program and Services,   Health Services, Medical Contracts, page 77, Eligibility Contracts, $700,000.
I am vetoing this item at the request of department officials who believe that their plans to streamline the eligibility determination process will produce budgetary savings. I commend these efforts and believe that these enhanced efficiencies will offset this reduction.
Veto 13   Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health And Environmental Control, Administration, page 81, Other Operating Expenses, $787,017.
Including all sources of funds, this appropriations act will increase DHEC's total state funding by $7 million - approximately a 7% increase from the current year. The appropriations act also provides an 8% increase in total funds amounting to approximately $535 million - a $41 million increase over the current year's budget. In fact, since FY 2002, DHEC's total budget will have increased by over $80 million - nearly 18%. Over the same time, most state agencies have suffered substantial double-digit decreases in their overall budgets.
Due to the need to free up sufficient funds to repay our state's unconstitutional deficit, I must make some difficult choices and am, therefore, compelled to veto this expenditure. I think that the agency is better suited than most to sustain this reduction given their substantial funding increases over the past few years and in this budget.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 14   Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health And Environmental Control, Coastal Resource Improvement, page 82, Other Operating Expenses, $247,794.
Including all sources of funds, this appropriations act will increase DHEC's total state funding by $7 million - approximately a 7% increase from the current year. The appropriations act also provides an 8% increase in total funds amounting to approximately $535 million - a $41 million increase over the current year's budget. In fact, since FY 2002, DHEC's total budget will have increased by over $80 million - nearly 18%. Over the same time, most state agencies have suffered substantial double-digit decreases in their overall budgets.
Due to the need to free up sufficient funds to repay our state's unconstitutional deficit, I must make some difficult choices and am, therefore, compelled to veto this expenditure. I think that the agency is better suited than most to sustain this reduction given their substantial funding increases over the past few years and in this budget.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 15   Part IA, Section 9, Dept of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and   Services, Coastal Resource Improvement, page 82, Hunting Is. Beach Renourishment, $5,000,000.
I am vetoing this item because the renourishment of the beach at Hunting Island is not the kind of investment that our state should be making, particularly during this current budget crisis. The threshold for this type of investment in infrastructure or natural resources should be a sustained, positive impact. In the case of this renourishment project, the opposite it almost a certainty.
First, the coast of South Carolina is in a prime hurricane path. Another storm anywhere near the size of Hurricane Hugo could literally wipe out in a day any attempt to supplement the beach on Hunting Island. We have been relatively lucky in recent years, such as in avoiding the brunt of Hurricane Isabel last year. But there is no doubt that we are due another major storm, and its impact would completely wipe out a renourishment project such as this.
My second concern is with the increased environmental pressures that renourishment places on beaches. As coastal geologist Orrin Pilkey of Duke University observed, "In a battle of man versus ocean, the ocean is going to win every time. I guarantee it." For example, the "borrow pits" offshore where sand is dredged from can actually draw sediment back down from the renourished beach in to the ocean, and the pits also allow larger waves nearer to the shore. These and other factors can combine to actually increase by two to twelve times the rate of preexisting erosion.
Finally, I would raise the following legislative enactment, from Section 48-39-250 of the South Carolina Code of Laws:
"(6) Erosion is a natural process which becomes a significant problem for man only when structures are erected in close proximity to the beach/dune system. It is in both the public and private interests to afford the beach/dune system space to accrete and erode in its natural cycle. This space can be provided only by discouraging new construction in close proximity to the beach/dune system and encouraging those who have erected structures too close to the system to retreat from it." [Emphasis added.]
Hunting Island, because of its preserved nature and lack of developed structures in close proximity to the beach, fits perfectly in to this description of an area that should be allowed to "accrete and erode in its natural cycle." In some instances due to substantial public and private investments, we are left with no choice but to fall back on remedies like renourishment. This is not the case here and, because of these factors, combined with our unconstitutional deficit, I feel compelled to veto this funding.
Veto 16   Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Air Quality Improvement, page 82, Other Operating Expenses, $181,459.
Including all sources of funds, this appropriations act will increase DHEC's total state funding by $7 million - approximately a 7% increase from the current year. The appropriations act also provides an 8% increase in total funds amounting to approximately $535 million - a $41 million increase over the current year's budget. In fact, since FY 2002, DHEC's total budget will have increased by over $80 million - nearly 18%. Over the same time, most state agencies have suffered substantial double-digit decreases in their overall budgets.
Due to the need to free up sufficient funds to repay our state's unconstitutional deficit, I must make some difficult choices and am, therefore, compelled to veto this expenditure. I think that the agency is better suited than most to sustain this reduction given their substantial funding increases over the past few years and in this budget.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 17   Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health And Environmental Control, Land & Waste Management, page 83, Other Operating Expenses, $761,791.
Including all sources of funds, this appropriations act will increase DHEC's total state funding by $7 million - approximately a 7% increase from the current year. The appropriations act also provides an 8% increase in total funds amounting to approximately $535 million - a $41 million increase over the current year's budget. In fact, since FY 2002, DHEC's total budget will have increased by over $80 million - nearly 18%. Over the same time, most state agencies have suffered substantial double-digit decreases in their overall budgets.
Due to the need to free up sufficient funds to repay our state's unconstitutional deficit, I must make some difficult choices and am, therefore, compelled to veto this expenditure. I think that the agency is better suited than most to sustain this reduction given their substantial funding increases over the past few years and in this budget.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 18   Part IA, Section 9, Dept of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and   Services, Family Health, Access to Care, page 85, Unclassified Positions, $138,073.
I am vetoing this item because, as I mentioned in my Executive Budget, DHEC has indicated that it could save over $1.7 million by streamlining access to care management, using technology to reduce travel and training costs, and by reducing rent, while still providing services that are accessible to all South Carolinians. I once again urge the Legislature to adopt these savings first suggested by DHEC as set forth in my Executive Budget.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 19   Part IA, Section 9, Dept of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and   Services, Family Health, Access to Care, page 85, Other Personal Service, $56,895.
I am vetoing this item because, as I mentioned in my Executive Budget, DHEC has indicated that it could save over $1.7 million by streamlining access to care management, using technology to reduce travel and training costs, and by reducing rent, while still providing services that are accessible to all South Carolinians. I once again urge the Legislature to adopt these savings first suggested by DHEC as set forth in my Executive Budget.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 20   Part IA, Section 9, Dept of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and   Services, Family Health, Access to Care, page 85, Lancaster Kershaw Health   Center, $175,738.
This funding represents a portion of the center's operating budget and is passed through the Medical School at the University of South Carolina. I am vetoing this item because, as set forth in my Executive Budget, the practice of funding individual organizations through budget line-items limits the ability of agency officials to make funding decisions for their agencies. Funding projects via budget line-items is generally the result of political influences, which should not be the criteria that we base decisions regarding funding one health center over another.
Veto 21   Part IA, Section 9, Dept of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and   Services, Family Health, Access to Care, page 85, Biotechnology Center, $547,620.
I am vetoing this item because, as I mentioned in my Executive Budget, DHEC has indicated that it could save over $1.7 million by streamlining access to care management, using technology to reduce travel and training costs, and by reducing rent, while still providing services that are accessible to all South Carolinians. I once again urge the Legislature to adopt these savings first suggested by DHEC as set forth in my Executive Budget.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 22   Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Health Care Standards Facility Service Development, Other Operating Expenses, page 87, $197,015.
Including all sources of funds, this appropriations act will increase DHEC's total state funding by $7 million - approximately a 7% increase from the current year. The appropriations act also provides an 8% increase in total funds amounting to approximately $535 million - a $41 million increase over the current year's budget. In fact, since FY 2002, DHEC's total budget will have increased by over $80 million - nearly 18%. Over the same time, most state agencies have suffered substantial double-digit decreases in their overall budgets.
Due to the need to free up sufficient funds to repay our state's unconstitutional deficit, I must make some difficult choices and am, therefore, compelled to veto this expenditure. I think that the agency is better suited than most to sustain this reduction given their substantial funding increases over the past few years and in this budget.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 23   Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Health Care Standards Licensing, Other Operating Expenses, page 87, $94,753.
Including all sources of funds, this appropriations act will increase DHEC's total state funding by $7 million - approximately a 7% increase from the current year. The appropriations act also provides an 8% increase in total funds amounting to approximately $535 million - a $41 million increase over the current year's budget. In fact, since FY 2002, DHEC's total budget will have increased by over $80 million - nearly 18%. Over the same time, most state agencies have suffered substantial double-digit decreases in their overall budgets.
Due to the need to free up sufficient funds to repay our state's unconstitutional deficit, I must make some difficult choices and am, therefore, compelled to veto this expenditure. I think that the agency is better suited than most to sustain this reduction given their substantial funding increases over the past few years and in this budget.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 24   Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Health Surveillance, Vital Records, Other Operating Expenses, page 88, $12,681.
Including all sources of funds, this appropriations act will increase DHEC's total state funding by $7 million - approximately a 7 % increase from the current year. The appropriations act also provides an 8 % increase in total funds amounting to approximately $535 million - a $41 million increase over the current year's budget. In fact, since FY 2002, DHEC's total budget will have increased by over $80 million - nearly 18 %. Over the same time, most state agencies have suffered substantial double-digit decreases in their overall budgets.
Due to the need to free up sufficient funds to repay our state's unconstitutional deficit, I must make some difficult choices and am, therefore, compelled to veto this expenditure. I think that the agency is better suited than most to sustain this reduction given their substantial funding increases over the past few years and in this budget.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 25   Part IA, Section 10, Dept of Mental Health, Programs and Services, Support   Services, Administrative Services, page 94, Unclassified Positions, $275,197.
This appropriations act increases the department's personal service appropriation for support services by over $900,000 - approximately 7.5 % over the amount funded last year. Due to the need to free up sufficient funds to repay our state's unconstitutional deficit, I must make some difficult choices and am, therefore, compelled to veto this expenditure. Because the appropriations act as presented to me contains mostly large rolled-up lines, there is no other way for me to reduce this 7.5 % increase.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 26   Part IA, Section 10, Dept of Mental Health, Programs and Services,   Support Services, Administrative Services, page 94, Other Personal   Services, $520,629.
This appropriations act increases the department's personal service appropriation for support services by over $900,000 - approximately 7.5% over the amount funded last year. Due to the need to free up sufficient funds to repay our state's unconstitutional deficit, I must make some difficult choices and am, therefore, compelled to veto this expenditure. Because the appropriations act as presented to me contains mostly large rolled-up lines, there is no other way for me to reduce this 7.5% increase.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 27   Part IA, Section 11, Dept of Disabilities and Special Needs, Programs and Services, Regional Centers, page 100, Other Operating Expenses, $56,662.
I am vetoing this item because my Executive Budget indicates a similar monetary amount is spent for the department's vehicle maintenance shop. I believe the operation of a vehicle maintenance shop is not a core function of this agency. Furthermore, as part of our overall proposal to privatize the state fleet, we believe we could realize these savings.
Veto 28   Part IA, Section 13, Department of Social Services, Programs and   Services, Employment and Training Servi, Case Management, page 111, Greenville Urban League, $18,389.
I am vetoing this item because, as stated in my Executive Budget, we have other excellent Urban League offices located throughout the State, and the Legislature should not single out one particular office for line-item funding.
Veto 29   Part IA, Section 21, Forestry Commission, Forest Landowner Assistance,   page   131, Forest Renewal Program, $200,000.
I believe that any non-core government activity that can be handled by the private sector generally should be handled by the private sector. This philosophical belief supports my rationale for selling a third of our state's vehicle fleet in favor of leasing them. Getting out of that activity should allow for substantial savings over time and will allow the agency to focus more intently on their core mission.
Along the same lines, while selling seedlings was likely a necessary service of the Forestry Commission at one time, I think that the emergence of new forest supply companies, the expansion of existing nurseries, and the growth of E-commerce have changed the need for government to provide this function. We have identified seedling availability by phone and internet for most of the products offered by the Forestry Commission, and we are confident that the private sector can easily pick up the demand for seedlings. Moreover, the elimination of state-subsidized seedling sales will decrease unfair competition in the forest industry. This agency should discontinue selling seedlings to citizens and instead provide guidance to those who need seedling products. For these reasons, I am vetoing this item which reflects the approximate dollar amount that the agency lost by offering this service last year. Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 30   Part IA, Section 22, Department of Agriculture, Administrative Services, page 134, Other Personal Services, $35,000, General Fund only.
Proviso 22.14 will increase the department's funding by $100,000 next year. Given the unconstitutional deficit that I think we are legally obligated to eliminate this year, I feel compelled to veto part of the agency's increase in order to help pay off the deficit. Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 31   Part IA, Section 22, Department of Agriculture, Consumer Services, page   134, Other Personal Services, $15,000.
Proviso 22.14 will increases the department's funding by $100,000 next year. Given the unconstitutional deficit that I think we are legally obligated to eliminate this year, I feel compelled to veto part of the agency's increase in order to help pay off the deficit. Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 32   Part IA, Section 24, Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research, Special Items, Waddell Mariculture, page 147, $400,000.
I am vetoing this item because Proviso 24.21 allows the agency to keep the proceeds of the sale of approximately $450,000 worth of surplus property which can be used for the maintenance needs at the Waddell facility.
Veto 33   Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Programs and   Services, Tourism Sales and Marketing, page 151, Contributions, $377,586.
I believe that any public-private endeavor should employ an open and objective competitive process so that the most worthy projects receive public investments. However, the political process is used too often resulting in the best connections rather than the best ideas being rewarded with funding. As indicated in my Executive Budget, this is a flow-through line for contributions for specific entities, projects, and special events which have been funded for many years. I am vetoing this item because I believe the $2.4 million competitive grants process used in the Tourism Marketing Partnership Program (TMPP) is a more fair way to fund these activities. Additionally, when PRT notified programs historically funded by this item of my exclusion of the funding from the Executive Budget, at least one recipient indicated that it has never expected to receive this funding from the state.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 34   Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Programs and Services, Tourism Sales and Marketing, page 152, Palmetto Bowl, $380,000.
I am fully supportive of efforts to bring the Palmetto Bowl to Charleston as I understand the significant economic impact that it can have on our State. However, I am concerned about paying for a long-term capital improvement project such as a stadium in an appropriations act that is intended to deal with annual operating expenses.
In the same way that we would not promise long-term tax credits through the annual budget process to a prospective business client of the Department of Commerce, I do not believe that we should subject funds for improvements to a Citadel stadium to the budget process for the next fifteen years. I therefore suggest that we look at funding any stadium enhancements from any available monies in the Capital Reserve Fund, and I am committed to working with legislative leadership to do so in the upcoming fiscal year. If it appears likely that ESPN is still interested in bringing the bowl to Charleston, full funding for the project could be secured in time for the stadium to be modified for the proposed December 2005 bowl game. For these reasons, I am vetoing this item.
Veto 35   Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Programs and   Services, Rec, Planning, Eng., page 152, Other Operating Expenses, $91,394.
This appropriations act increases PRT's appropriation 6%. While this increase will allow more important resources to be used in marketing our state, the need to eliminate our unconstitutional deficit compels me to veto a small part of the agency's increase. Because the appropriations act as presented to me contains mostly large rolled-up lines, there is no other way for me to reduce the 6% increase. Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 36   Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Programs and Services, Communications, page 153, Other Operating $25,000.
A $250,000 appropriation was added to PRT's budget for the special item "Freedom Weekend Aloft." While I do not object to the event itself as stated in Veto 33 related to other pass-through funds for this agency, I believe that these types of events should be funded based on their merits as determined through the TMPP process as opposed to political earmarks. Unfortunately, this $250,000 appropriation was added to PRT's existing line for advertising which makes a line item veto of exactly $250,000 very difficult. Since I do not object to the entire advertising line item, I am vetoing other lines within the agency's budget in this veto and in Vetoes 37 and 38 which total $249,235 to account for this $250,000 appropriation. Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 37   Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Programs and Services, Research and Policy, page 153, Classified Positions $211,020.
For the same reasons provided in Veto 36, I am vetoing this item since I object to the $250,000 appropriation of the "Freedom Weekend Aloft" item. Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 38   Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks Recreation and Tourism, Administrative Services 151, Other Personal Services, $13,215.
For the same reasons provided in Veto 36 , I am vetoing this item since I object to the $250,000 appropriation of the "Freedom Weekend Aloft" item. Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 39   Part IA, Section 27, Department of Commerce, Programs and Services, Community and Rural Development, page 156, Classified Positions $39,663.
A $197,688 appropriation was added to the department's budget for the special item "World Trade Park and Education Research Center." While this may be a worthy program, given our unconstitutional deficit, I do not believe it is appropriate to begin such a program this year. Because this appropriation was added to an existing "other operating" line that totals over $1.8 million making a line item veto of exactly $197,688 very difficult, I am forced to veto other lines within the department's budget. Therefore, this veto and Vetoes 40 and 41 which total $197,422 account for the "World Trade Park and Education Research Center" appropriations. It is my intent for the department to use the flexibility proviso to replace these line items vetoed with the appropriation added in the other operating line for this special item.
Veto 40   Part IA, Section 27, Department of Commerce, Programs and Services, Community and Rural Development, page 156, Unclassified Positions $75,000.
For the same reasons provided in Veto 39, I am vetoing this item because I object to the $197,688 appropriations for the "World Trade Park and Education Research Center." It is my intent for the agency to use the flexibility proviso to replace these line items vetoed with the appropriation added in the other operating line for this special item.
Veto 41   Part IA, Section 27, Department of Commerce, Programs and Services, Aeronautics, page 158, Unclassified Positions $ 82,759.
For the same reasons provided in Veto 39, I am vetoing this item because I object to the $197,688 appropriations for the "World Trade Park and Education Research Center." It is my intent for the agency to use the flexibility proviso to replace these line items vetoed with the appropriation added in the other operating line for this special item.
Veto 42   Part IA, Section 53, Department of Transportation, Mass Transit, page 221, Aid to Other Entities, $100,990.
The Department of Transportation's budget has increased approximately 32% to over $1.1 billion for the next fiscal year. The Mass Transit Division of the South Carolina Department of Transportation has a total budget of $20.9 million in total funds. The appropriated funds for FY 2003-2004 was $1,000. This cut represents one half of one percent of a total cut to the Mass Transit Division, while the overall transit budget has increased 11.4 %. As such, the proposed cut poses no threat to the overall transit budget and would instead, provide funds to eliminate the unconstitutional deficit from FY 2001-2002.
Veto 43   Part IA, Section 61, Adjutant General's Office, Other Operating Expenses, page 252, Funeral Caisson, $99,000.
As I stated in my Executive Budget, the hard work of the purely volunteer group that oversees the Caisson should be recognized and commended. This unique asset to our state is something I support. However, due to the need to free up sufficient funds to repay our state's unconstitutional deficit, I must make some difficult choices and am, therefore, compelled to veto this expenditure. Our initial recommendation not to fund the program has led to some positive options. Department of Corrections Director Jon Ozmint has offered to house the eight member team at the Wateree Correctional Institute Prison Farm outside of Camden. The facility can absorb a great deal, if not all, of the expenses associated with the care of the horses. I am hopeful that through this type of creative thinking, state funding for the caisson can be eliminated without diminishing the benefits of this unique program.
Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 44   Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Board Administration, Other Operating Expenses, page 258, $225,270.
Consistent with my earlier expressed beliefs regarding activities such as vehicle management and seedling sales, I believe government should stay out of the business of providing services that are offered by the private sector. From that core philosophy stems my belief that the Budget and Control Board does not need to run a division to sell office supplies to state agencies as the private sector is very capable of providing that function. In fact, I would argue that the private sector is likely able to better provide that function as our Central Supply division has lost significant amounts of money over the past couple of years.
Because my veto authority does not allow me to rewrite the appropriations act, I am forced to veto lines like this one in order to encourage the agency to absorb this cut by closing down operations I find objectionable. This is the only tool I have to effect the change I desire. I am vetoing this line in the hopes that these funds will be replaced by the savings from ceasing any operations offered by the private sector.
Veto 45   Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Office of Executive Director, Board Administration, page 258, Veterans' Memorial, $250,000.
This memorial was authorized to be erected in 1984 pursuant to Section 10-1-170 of the South Carolina Code of Laws by the South Carolina Arts Commission and the South Carolina Veterans Monument Association. This statute also authorized up to $300,000 from the Sinking Fund in support of this project. While we understand the Legislature's intent to follow through on the construction of this monument, we believe the funds should come from the Sinking Fund as authorized by the Act. Currently there is in excess of $1.1 million in the Sinking Fund, more than enough money to honor a commitment made by the state 20 years ago. For these reasons, I am vetoing this item.
Veto 46   Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Economic Research, Other Operating Expenses, page 261, $110,400.
As referenced in our Executive Budget, cutting back on custodial or other general services in state agencies is a way that we can save an estimated $1 million annually without materially hampering our ability to serve the citizens of the state. While the makeup of the budget will not allow me to veto $1 million from the General Services Division, I am vetoing this line and asking the Budget and Control Board to replace the funds in this division through such a reduction in custodial services.
Veto 47   Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Digital Cartography, Other Operating Expenses, page 261, $33,200.
As referenced in our Executive Budget, cutting back on custodial or other general services in state agencies is a way that we can save an estimated $1 million annually without materially hampering our ability to serve the citizens of the state. While the makeup of the budget will not allow me to veto $1 million from the General Services Division, I am vetoing this line and asking the Budget and Control Board to replace the funds in this division through such a reduction in custodial services.
Veto 48   Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Budget and Analyses   Division, Board of Economic Advisors, page 262, Other Operating Expenses, $122,992.
This appropriations act increases the BEA's funding by $100,000, which is over a 40% increase from their current budget. Given the unconstitutional deficit that must be eliminated and our difficulty in funding critical core services with certified recurring dollars, I am compelled to veto this line which closely matches the increase in funds for the BEA. Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 49   Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Office of Human Resources, Other Operating Expenses, page 262, $774,678.
As referenced in our Executive Budget, cutting back on custodial or other general services in state agencies is a way that we can save an estimated $1 million annually without materially hampering our ability to serve the citizens of the state. While the makeup of the budget will not allow me to veto $1 million from the General Services Division, I am vetoing this line and asking the Budget and Control Board to replace the funds in this division through such a reduction in custodial services.
Veto 50   Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Insurance and Grants Division, Office of Local Government, page 269, SC Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund, $30,000.
It is our belief that any rural development activities should be coordinated through the Department of Commerce. Currently the Rural Infrastructure Fund under the department provides grants to counties in order to promote economic development. This proviso would create duplication of an existing program and should be consolidated under department.
Veto 51   Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, State CIO Division, CIO Chief Technology Officer, page 271, Total CIO Chief Technology Officer, $313,883.
We propose eliminating the general fund appropriation for the total state CIO. I am appreciative of the significant progress that the CIO's office has made in reducing rates over the past year and encourage it to continue along that path. As mentioned in our Executive Budget, an independent assessment by The Gartner Group pointed out the following three areas where it believes we can achieve further savings:
1. The Help Desk, where we spend "4.5% higher than our workload peer group."
2. CIO's occupancy costs, which the Gartner group reports is $2,224,000, "four to five times higher than our peer groups."
3. Personnel, where the report points out that CIO's 167.4 FTE's, are "significantly higher than the Workload peer group FTE staff of 87.9 that would be required to support the state's workload."
Further savings in these three areas of identified costs should allow the division to easily save the $313,883 they receive in general fund dollars - which is approximately one-half of one percent of their total budget.

Veto 52   Part IB, Section 1.23, Department of Education, page 294, SDE: Mathematics and Science Unit of the Office of Curriculum and Standards.
I am vetoing this section that appropriates $75,000 to the South Carolina Aquarium because, as indicated in my Executive Budget, I believe we must direct as many of our limited state education dollars as possible to the classroom. I highlighted this appropriation, in particular, in my Executive Budget because the South Carolina Aquarium itself describes the aquarium as a self-supporting educational institution. Under the flexibility proviso in this act, the agency may identify available funds elsewhere in the budget so this particular item can be paid.
Veto 53   Part IB, Section 5A.27, Commission on Higher Education, page 322, CHE: Excellence Enhancement Program Additions.
I am vetoing this section that expands and increases funding by $1.2 million for the Excellence Enhancement Program (EEP) by adding Converse College and Columbia College to the list of qualified schools. This program was established in FY 2003-2004 to work with colleges where 60% or more of the students are poor and educationally disadvantaged. This is a goal we applaud, and we ultimately believe our lottery dollars should be focused on needs-based students first and foremost. However, adding these two schools may steer the intent of the program away from serving the needs-based population. In addition, continuing to add schools also places demands on increasing the budget considerably from year to year. With the growth of LIFE, HOPE, and Palmetto Scholarships, growing other programs out of the Lottery Budget could set the stage for reductions in future years. The aim to help these two colleges is laudable, but in this type of budget environment we should be cautious of potential mission creep and dilution of core focus such as helping needs-based students.
Veto 54   Part IB, Section 8.32, Department of Health and Human Services, page 328, DHHS: Prescription Reimbursement Payment Methodology.
I am vetoing this section because if it were enacted, it would limit DHHS's options in the event the department is forced to reduce pharmacy reimbursements. While the department does not expect a need to reduce pharmacy reimbursements in any way, the pharmacists would prefer that DHHS reduce the dispensing fee rather than cut the reimbursement rate. The department believes it should have all of the tools necessary to make the any necessary changes to pharmacies.
Veto 55   Part IB, Section 8.43, Department of Health and Human Services, page 330, DHHS: Medicaid Quarterly Fiscal Impact Statements.
I am vetoing this section because it imposes an undue and unique burden on DHHS not imposed on any other agency. According to standard operating procedure and the policy of my administration, all cabinet agencies must provide information relating to any proposed changes in policy upon request. Currently the department provides Medicaid bulletins that announce benefit or rate changes to the House of Representatives and the Senate. In addition, Executive Order 2002-23 requires that DHHS prepare an annual report with the same information as required in this section. Finally, the requirement that any changes, no matter how insignificant, to the Medicaid program must be reported is vague, burdensome and unnecessary.
Veto 56   Part IB, Section 8.48, Department of Health and Human Services, page 330, DHHS: Ambulance Services Reimbursement.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessarily restrictive to DHHS. The department has no pending plan to modify the existing reimbursement rates to such providers. In addition, as a matter of policy, we should not allow individual provider groups to be singled out for protection of rate changes.
In addition, with gas prices approaching $2 per gallon, the costs of providing services could increase if these prices are sustained over some period of time. This proviso would also prohibit DHHS from increasing these fees in the event it becomes necessary, leaving ambulance service providers to absorb these increased costs.
Veto 57   Part IB, Section 13.20, Department of Social Services, page 344, DSS: C. R. Neal Learning Center.
I am vetoing this section that appropriates $100,000 to the C.R. Neal Learning Center because, as stated in my Executive Budget, no Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) clients current attend the C.R. Neal Learning Center. In addition, we noted, as a matter of policy, that TANF dollars should not be earmarked, but rather directed by the Department of Social Services to its clients. Finally, adult education activities at this location have decreased to such a level that the facility has since been closed.
Veto 58   Part IB, Section 13.28, Department of Social Services, page 345, DSS: Child Care Services Providers Reimbursement Rates.
I am vetoing this section in order to allow the department to manage its budget reductions. Prior to the 2003-2004 Appropriations Act, the department had indicated that if it received an additional $10 million cut, one of the areas that would be reduced in order to manage the cut was the rate the department pays therapeutic providers of residential care for foster children. Subsequently, the department did receive an additional $10 million reduction with no reduction in the level of mandated services. This section takes away the department's ability to make reductions in expenditures in order to maintain a balanced budget and, therefore, I am vetoing it.
Veto 59   Part IB, Section 23.9, Clemson University - PSA, page 350, CU-PSA: Sandhills Revenue.
This section states that the planned expenditure of the Sandhills revenue has already been approved by the Clemson University Board of Trustees as well as the Budget and control Board. Since Clemson PSA's budget sustained a much smaller cut than was proposed in the Executive Budget, this section is unnecessary, and therefore I am vetoing it.
Veto 60   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (2) P28-Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. $1,998,501
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 61   Part IB, Section 24.22, Department of Natural Resources, page 353, DNR: Retirement Incentive.
I am vetoing this section because it is inconsistent with my position on at-will employees. Last summer I made this position very clear, that going forward I would oppose buyouts for at-will employees. There is a certain risk when an employee takes an at-will position, and for this reason, I am vetoing this section.
Veto 62   Part IB, Section 26.1, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 353, PRT: Canadian Day.
I support the Canadian Promotion program, as does PRT Director Chad Prosser who is from the Myrtle Beach area. Because of our support for this program, I have left the Part IA funding for the program that this section references intact. However, we believe that PRT should work closely with the Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce to determine the best approach to using the Canadian Promotion, and, therefore, we would like for PRT to have flexibility to determine what that approach should be. Therefore, I am vetoing this section.
Veto 63   Part IB, Section 26.6, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 353, PRT: Palmetto Bowl Funding.
Because I am vetoing the line-item funding for the Palmetto Bowl, this section is unnecessary. Again, I am fully supportive of the efforts to bring the Palmetto Bowl to Charleston; however, I believe we should fund the stadium improvements through the Capital Reserve Fund and not out of annual operating expenses.
Veto 64   Part IB, Section 26.8, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 354, PRT: Litter Control Program Transfer.
Since its creation by Executive Order, PalmettoPride has been supported in the Governor's Office - Office of Executive Policy and Programs. The move from the Governor's Office to PRT will only serve to dilute the accountability of this program, and for that reason I am vetoing this section.
Veto 65   Part IB, Section 26.11, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 354, PRT: Litter Control.
PalmettoPride evolved from the Governor's Task Force on Litter which was established by Executive Order 99-20. It has since operated within the Governor's Office of Executive Policy and Programs. Within Part IB of this budget, the General Assembly has transferred the program to another agency, written a charter, and established criteria for a board of directors.
I take issue with these actions on two grounds. First, I believe this is a clear encroachment by the General Assembly into an executive branch program. PalmettoPride was established by executive order and has existed in the Governor's Office for five years. There is no compelling reason to remove this program, and, given its origins, it should remain under the Governor's control.
Second, this section establishes a nonprofit agency, dictates the composition of a board of directors, and sets multi-year terms. This would not appear to be a one-year, temporary proviso as Part IB items are intended to be. The General Assembly has taken admirable steps over the past several years to curb the use of budget provisos to enact permanent laws. I am vetoing this section because I believe that the budget should not be a vehicle for these types of permanent law changes.
Veto 66   Part IB, Section 27.6, Department of Commerce, page 355, CMRC: Aeronautics - Office Space Rental.
We oppose the transfer of the Division of Aeronautics to the Department of Transportation and will also veto Proviso 72.89 (GP: Division of Aeronautics Transfer). It is our intent that the Division of Aeronautics will stay within the Department of Commerce, thus making rent payments unnecessary.
Veto 67   Part IB, Section 27.19, Department of Commerce, page 357, CMRC: Local Government Fund Repayment.
I am vetoing this section because Proviso 27.25 provides $2.4 million for the outstanding loan balance. The Department of Commerce intends to pay the balance through other means. Proviso 27.19 is also inconsistent with the intent of Proviso 27.12 which states, "The Department of Commerce may carry forward proceeds from the sale of aircraft to be used for replacement aircraft and for required Federal Aviation Administration upgrades to existing aircraft."
Additionally, we believe Aeronautics assets should not be used for purposes other than Aeronautics. As such, I am vetoing this section so that the department can find alternative means to repay the loan balance, thus allowing the department to retain the funds from the sale of the fractional jet for Aeronautics purposes.
Veto 68   Part IB, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 357, CMRC: Funding For I-73.
I am vetoing this section because it is an unnecessary set aside, and it also sets a precedent by earmarking funds from the Coordinating Council. This money is for closing deals, not for projects no matter how meritorious. I have a long track record in support of I-73, which I believe is one of the greatest transportation needs in the State of South Carolina. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I drafted the authorizing language directing I-73 to Myrtle Beach rather than Charleston. That being said, this is an extremely unusual earmark from the Coordinating Council for project funding. The fund should be used exclusively to close economic development deals. Because this is a great transportation need for the State, we believe the South Carolina Department of Transportation should work to develop funding for I-73 within their own budget, as is typically the case in federal-aid highways.
Veto 69   Part IB, Section 29A.1, S.C. Conservation Bank, pages 357-358, CB: Maintaining Database.
I am vetoing this section because it imposes an undue burden on the Conservation Bank. We would recommend that the Conservation Bank maintain records for all of the conservation easements purchased by the Bank, but requiring an updated database of all easements should not be the responsibility of this agency.
Veto 70   Part IB, Section 36.1, Department of Public Safety, page 365, DPS: Special Events Traffic Control.
I am vetoing this section because I continue to believe that the Department of Public Safety, at its discretion, should be able to assess reasonable fees for support provided to special events.
Veto 71   Part IB, Section 47.4, Department of Insurance, page 378, INS: State Accident Fund.
The State Accident Fund provides workers' compensation insurance coverage for state agencies and political subdivisions. The Department of Insurance regulates insurers, including those that provide workers' compensation insurance. This proviso would put the regulator of insurance in the business of running what is effectively an insurance company - thereby causing a clear conflict. No state has housed its workers' compensation fund for government workers within an insurance regulatory agency. There are currently 26 similar funds in the country. Twenty-two of these are independent entities reporting directly to the Governor or to a board of managers appointed by the governor.
I am vetoing this section because the Department of Insurance's regulatory mission is not consistent with it managing an insurance program. In addition, no state general funds are appropriated to the SAF - nor do any similar employees currently exist at the Department of Insurance, leaving little to be gained in efficiency. In my Executive Budget, I recommended moving the State Accident Fund and the Insurance Reserve Fund into a new Trust Fund Authority. Both of these funds provide liability insurance coverage for government entities. I once again urge the Legislature to adopt our State Accident Fund proposal.
Veto 72   Part IB, Section 50.19, Department of Labor Licensing Regulations, page 380, LLR: Funeral Home Inspectors.
I am vetoing this section because this department has recently announced that it plans to create a full-time position to inspect funeral homes and crematories for the State Board of Funeral Service. Since the department intends to take such action, this section is both redundant and unnecessary. Furthermore, as a matter of policy, I believe we should avoid directing staff at various agencies through provisos.
Veto 73   Part IB, Section 56DD.42, Governor's Office, page 392, SLED-Video Poker.
I am vetoing this Proviso, not out of an objection to increased fines to illegal video poker operators, but my concern that this Proviso does not meet Constitutional muster. The intent, which I fully support, is to fine those who would set up illegal video poker machines. However, the Proviso fails on the grounds that it offers no due process and simply empowers an agency to impose a fine and determine machines illegal. Though I am vetoing this Proviso in the current budget, I will work with SLED and members of the General Assembly to perfect this language and reintroduce it in the next year. I believe those who would illegally operate illegal machines should face punitive fines.
Veto 74   Part IB, Section 72.89, General Provisions, page 433, GP: Division of Aeronautics Transfer.
I am vetoing this section which transfers the Division of Aeronautics from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Transportation because I am opposed to the "unrestructuring" and lessening of accountability that will result by moving a division from a cabinet agency to a non-cabinet agency. In addition, if enacted, this section will impede an agreement regarding this division that has been reached among the Department of Commerce, legislators and potential economic developers.
Veto 75   Part IB, Section 72.104, General Provisions, page 436, GP: Secure Juvenile Confinement.
I am vetoing this section because it unduly interferes with the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Correction's oversight of federal funding for certain juvenile facilities. These agencies should not lose their flexibility to change their current policies. The Attorney General can review the agencies' interpretation without this proviso.
Veto 76   Part IB, Section 72.111, General Provisions, page 438, GP: Prison Medical Services Study.
I am vetoing this section because it interferes with a procurement process that is well underway. If this proviso is enacted, it could open the state to liability from vendors that have participated in the process. Privatizing prison medical services has been studied numerous times by corrections agencies, policy groups, and federal courts nationwide. As a result of these studies, more than half of all states have fully privatized correctional medical services. Currently, many county jails have already privatized inmate health care, including the Lee-Sumter correctional facility. Both the South Carolina Policy Council and a joint legislative committee, established by the General Assembly, have already studied and recommended this course of action. The legislatively-created committee recommended in its April 2003 report that the South Carolina Department of Corrections and the Department of Probation, Pardons and Parole "develop requests for proposals to consider privatization of functional areas of health care services...." The Department of Corrections, following that recommendation, is already months into the procurement process. Allowing this proviso to stand would prevent the agency from recognizing savings in a substantial cost area and allow the agency to contain costs over time.
Veto 77   Part IB, Section 73.10, General Provisions, page 442, SR: Sale of Vehicles/Maintenance Facilities Closure Study.
I am vetoing this section because it is redundant and conflicts with Proviso 73.18. (SR: Repayment of Deficit) which also requires a study by the Budget and Control Board. I believe that study can be done quickly because privatizing the state fleet has already been studied by various entities, including the MAP Commission. As the intent of Proviso 73.18 is to better utilize assets to generate one-time revenue for retiring the unconstitutional deficit, we will encourage the staff at the Budget and Control Board to move promptly on the asset sales in order to realize the proceeds as soon as possible.
Veto 78   Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, H73 Vocational Rehabilitation.
This item subjects Vocational Rehabilitation to a budget cut in the event the FY 2003-2004 anticipated surplus does not total at least $35,583,799. Although the Board of Economic Advisors has projected that at least this amount of surplus will be realized, it is necessary to take into account the existing deficits being run by the Department of Corrections, the State Election Commission and the Department of Juvenile Justice, which will place demands on the projected surplus. Thus, we are concerned that the full amount of the surplus may not be realized, which would result in a significant cut for this agency. For instance, this agency could be cut up to $270,167, if the surplus does not materialize. Accordingly, I am vetoing this distinctly labeled item to protect this agency.
Veto 79   Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, J16 Department of Disabilities and Special Needs.
This item subjects the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs to a budget cut in the event the FY 2003-2004 anticipated surplus does not total at least $35,583,799. Although the Board of Economic Advisors has projected that at least this amount of surplus will be realized, it is necessary to take into account the existing deficits being run by the Department of Corrections, the State Election Commission and the Department of Juvenile Justice, which will place demands on the projected surplus. Thus, we are concerned that the full amount of the surplus may not be realized, which would result in a significant cut for this agency. For instance, this agency could be cut up to $3,121,998, if the surplus does not materialize. Accordingly, I am vetoing this distinctly labeled item to protect this agency.
Veto 80   Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, J20 Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services.
This item subjects the Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services to a budget cut in the event the FY 2003-2004 anticipated surplus does not total at least $35,583,799. Although the Board of Economic Advisors has projected that at least this amount of surplus will be realized, it is necessary to take into account the existing deficits being run by the Department of Corrections, the State Election Commission and the Department of Juvenile Justice, which will place demands on the projected surplus. Thus, we are concerned that the full amount of the surplus may not be realized, which would result in a significant cut for this agency. For instance, this agency could be cut up to $145,133, if the surplus does not materialize. Accordingly, I am vetoing this distinctly labeled item to protect this agency.
Veto 81   Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, L04 Department of Social Services.
This item subjects the Department of Social Services to a budget cut in the event the FY 2003-2004 anticipated surplus does not total at least $35,583,799. Although the Board of Economic Advisors has projected that at least this amount of surplus will be realized, it is necessary to take into account the existing deficits being run by the Department of Corrections, the State Election Commission and the Department of Juvenile Justice, which will place demands on the projected surplus. Thus, we are concerned that the full amount of the surplus may not be realized, which would result in a significant cut for this agency. For instance, this agency could be cut up to $1,891,028, if the surplus does not materialize. Accordingly, I am vetoing this distinctly labeled item to protect this agency.
Veto 82   Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, L24 Commission for the Blind.
This item subjects the Commission for the Blind to a budget cut in the event the FY 2003-2004 anticipated surplus does not total at least $35,583,799. Although the Board of Economic Advisors has projected that at least this amount of surplus will be realized, it is necessary to take into account the existing deficits being run by the Department of Corrections, the State Election Commission and the Department of Juvenile Justice, which will place demands on the projected surplus. Thus, we are concerned that the full amount of the surplus may not be realized, which would result in a significant cut for this agency. For instance, this agency could be cut up to $58,460, if the surplus does not materialize. Accordingly, I am vetoing this distinctly labeled item to protect this agency.
Veto 83   Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, B04 Judicial Department.
This item subjects the Judicial Department to a budget cut in the event the FY 2003-2004 anticipated surplus does not total at least $35,583,799. Although the Board of Economic Advisors has projected that at least this amount of surplus will be realized, it is necessary to take into account the existing deficits being run by the Department of Corrections, the State Election Commission and the Department of Juvenile Justice, which will place demands on the projected surplus. Thus, we are concerned that the full amount of the surplus may not be realized, which would result in a significant cut for this agency. For instance, this agency could be cut up to $770,471, if the surplus does not materialize. Accordingly, I am vetoing this distinctly labeled item to protect this agency.
Veto 84   Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, N04 Department of Corrections.
This item subjects the Department of Corrections to a budget cut in the event the FY 2003-2004 anticipated surplus does not total at least $35,583,799. Although the Board of Economic Advisors has projected that at least this amount of surplus will be realized, it is necessary to take into account the existing deficits being run by the Department of Corrections, the State Election Commission and the Department of Juvenile Justice, which will place demands on the projected surplus. Thus, we are concerned that the full amount of the surplus may not be realized, which would result in a significant cut for this agency. For instance, this agency could be cut up to $6,612,717, if the surplus does not materialize. Accordingly, I am vetoing this distinctly labeled item to protect this agency.
Veto 85   Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 444, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, N08 Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services.
This item subjects the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services to a budget cut in the event the FY 2003-2004 anticipated surplus does not total at least $35,583,799. Although the Board of Economic Advisors has projected that at least this amount of surplus will be realized, it is necessary to take into account the existing deficits being run by the Department of Corrections, the State Election Commission and the Department of Juvenile Justice, which will place demands on the projected surplus. Thus, we are concerned that the full amount of the surplus may not be realized, which would result in a significant cut for this agency. For instance, this agency could be cut up to $398,162, if the surplus does not materialize. Accordingly, I am vetoing this distinctly labeled item to protect this agency.
Veto 86   Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 444, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, N12 Department of Juvenile Justice.
This item subjects the Department of Juvenile Justice to a budget cut in the event the FY 2003-2004 anticipated surplus does not total at least $35,583,799. Although the Board of Economic Advisors has projected that at least this amount of surplus will be realized, it is necessary to take into account the existing deficits being run by the Department of Corrections, the State Election Commission and the Department of Juvenile Justice, which will place demands on the projected surplus. Thus, we are concerned that the full amount of the surplus may not be realized, which would result in a significant cut for this agency. For instance, this agency could be cut up to $1,629,706, if the surplus does not materialize. Accordingly, I am vetoing this distinctly labeled item to protect this agency.
Vetoes 78 through 86 are consistent with Article IV, Section 21 of the South Carolina Constitution which authorizes the Governor to veto "items or sections" in appropriations bills. The agencies identified in Part IB, Section 73.17(B), pages 443-444, are listed separately by agency number and name as distinct items divided by semicolons.

As stated earlier, the General Appropriations Act appropriates $90 million in new tax revenues that the Department of Revenue hopes to collect in Fiscal Year 2004-2005 though enhanced collection activities. This $90 million represents 100%, every single penny, of the so-called "Maybank Money."
Consider what others involved in the budgeting process have stated about the Maybank Money and the prospect of appropriating it for state programs. The Associated Press, reporting on the House's decision to appropriate the entire $90 million of Maybank Money in the budget, noted that: the Senate Finance Chairman believed "that money is too iffy to include in the state budget" and would be "hard pressed" to believe that all the money would be collected; "the Board of Economic Advisors 'vigorously do not certify' that [DOR Director Maybank] will collect that much money"; and the BEA's chairman has called the plan to appropriate the entire $90 million "foolishness." Early in the Senate budgeting deliberations, the notion of only appropriating $50 million of the hoped-for $90 million was recommended by the Senate Finance Executive Committee.
As I have noted throughout this budget process, we share these reservations regarding the appropriation of the entire $90 million of Maybank Money. There are several reasons why appropriating 100% of the Maybank Money is fiscally irresponsible.
First, it further exacerbates annualizations-the practice of using one-time money to pay for recurring items. We have tried to move away from this poor budgeting practice in recent years. For example, in Fiscal Year 2000-2001, our state's annualizations were $564 million; last fiscal year, this amount was reduced to $235 million. In my Executive Budget, annualizations were reduced further still, from $235 million to $144 million (and the annualizations in my Executive Budget would have been further reduced to $21 million with the benefit of the additional $123 million in recurring money for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 recently recognized by the BEA.) But the use of 100% of the Maybank Money, which everyone acknowledges will be a significantly diminishing pot of money over time, moves us in the other direction, toward increased annualizations. This appropriation act uses 5.6 % of total spending, more than $300 million in one-time money including the Maybank money.
It is important to look at what the use of non-recurring or one-time revenues does to the ongoing or future budgetary needs of this state. A budget that uses 5.6% of its ongoing spending from one-time sources needs to grow its revenues by 5.6% in the next year just to keep its spending levels flat. In order to accommodate a 2% rise in spending in the next budget year, revenues would have to grow 8% and, to accommodate a 4% increase in spending, 10% revenue growth would be needed. (See chart below.) This practice would be harmful and unsustainable in a family budget or for any small business and, in our state, this practice must end.

Second, we need to put our state's fiscal house in order. There is now only approximately $50 million in the state's General Reserve Fund, and the Constitutional requirement is approximately $150 million. Having our state's "rainy day" fund so depleted in these uncertain economic times is risky. State agencies face the prospect of increased operational costs in the next fiscal year as a result of an increase in the bonded indebtedness limit, rising interest rates, escalating gasoline prices, among other things-and any overruns will have to be borne by the General Reserve Fund. Funding those same state agencies with "iffy" Maybank Money simply further increases the pressure on the General Reserve Fund.
The third and most important reason why it is important that we not appropriate 100% of the $90 million in Maybank Money relates to our extreme concern over how the Department of Social Services is treated in the General Appropriations Act. The $78 million appropriated to it in FY 2004-2005 means that it has now sustained a 35% reduction in its budget since FY 2001-2002. While its workforce has been reduced by approximately 27% to absorb these cuts, its caseload has increased dramatically. And our concern about the inadequate funding of DSS in the General Appropriations Act is compounded by the fact that 20% of its DSS budget has been funded by the "iffy" Maybank Money, and further still by the fact that the General Assembly took precautions to protect a few agencies in the event the Maybank Money did not come in, but did not include DSS as one of those agencies.
I am not able to direct the General Assembly to fund DSS with certified funds. And I am also not able to direct the General Assembly to include DSS as one of the state agencies that is protected in case the full amount of the Maybank Money is not realized. But what I can do to improve DSS' chances of fully realizing its share of the Maybank Money is to veto approximately $21 million in appropriations of the uncertified Maybank Money to other state agencies that, I believe, perform services that are relatively less critical than those provided by DSS.
For the above reasons, I will let stand the appropriation of approximately $79 million of the Maybank Money and veto programs funded by Maybank Money that, in the aggregate, involve approximately $21 million, or one-fourth, of these hoped-for funds. These vetoes are set forth below.
Veto 87   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (2) H67-Educational Television: $1,026,992.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 88   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (4) J04-Department of Health and Environmental Control: $7,675,331.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 89   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (9) H79-Department of Archives and History: $250,534.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 90   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (10) H87-State Library: $481,745.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 91   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (11) H91-Arts Commission: $243,896.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected
Veto 92   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (12) H95-Museum Commission: $331,629.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 93   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (13) P12-Forestry Commission: $1,006,311.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 94   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (14) P20-Clemson University Public Service Activities: $2,753,047.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 95   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (16) P28-Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism: $1,998,501.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 96   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (20) R40-Department of Motor Vehicles: $1,937,247.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 97   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (26) R28-Department of Consumer Affairs: $118,098.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 98   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (38) E04-Lieutenant Governor: $19,773.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 99   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (39) E08-Secretary of State: $68,086.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 100   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (41) F03-Budget and Control Board: $2,661,363.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 101   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (42) F27-Budget and Control Board - Auditor: $225,018.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 102   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (47) J02 - Dept. of Health and Human Services: Columbia Urban League $9,000.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 103   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (48) J02 - Dept. of Health and Human Services: Greenville Urban League $9,000.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 104   Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (54) P21 - SC State PSA: $152,013.
I am vetoing this section to enhance our core agencies' opportunity to receive their allocation from this proviso in the event the full amount of Maybank Money is not collected.
Veto 105   I am vetoing the following distinctly labeled items from Part IB, Section 1AA.1, Lottery Expenditure Account, page 315, LEA: Lottery Funds: $674,000 Department of Education - Governor's School for Science and Mathematics; and the remainder shall go to the Department of Education for the purchase and repair of school buses.
I am vetoing this section because it appropriates dollars that have not been certified by the Board of Economic Advisors, and therefore constitute "wish list" spending. Though both of these items have merit, we should avoid the practice of promising funds that are otherwise uncollected. Such a practice raises expectations that often fail to deliver and prevents us from making priority decisions in funding.
Veto 106   I am vetoing the following distinctly labeled items from Part IB, Section 1AA.1, Lottery Expenditure Account, pages 315-316, LEA: Lottery Funds: After the first $86,000,000 of lottery funds carried forward from the prior fiscal year are realized, the next $500,000 realized shall be appropriated to the State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education for Spartanburg Technical College for the Cherokee County Campus. The next $1,000,000 realized shall be appropriated to the Governor's Office of Executive Policy and Programs for academic enrichment after-school programs administered by the South Carolina Alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs, Inc., and the next $250,000 realized shall be appropriated to Francis Marion University for the expansion of the Nursing Program, and the next $100,000 shall be appropriated to Chesterfield County School District. Any further amount realized shall be appropriated to the counties of this State in equal amounts not to exceed $50,000 per county for local library aid.
I am vetoing this section because it appropriates dollars that have not been certified by the Board of Economic Advisors, and therefore constitute "wish list" spending. Though both of these items have merit, we should avoid the practice of promising funds that are otherwise uncollected. Such a practice raises expectations that often fail to deliver and prevents us from making priority decisions in funding.
Vetoes 105 and 106 are consistent with Article IV, Section 21 of the South Carolina Constitution which authorizes the Governor to veto "items or sections" in appropriations bills. Black's Law Dictionary defines an "item" in an appropriation as "an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose." The language vetoed in Vetoes 105 and 106 meet this definition.

For the reasons stated above, and pursuant to the authority granted to the governor by Article IV, Section 21 of the South Carolina Constitution, I am vetoing the specific sections and items of H.4925, R. 333, the fiscal year 2004-2005 General Appropriations Act, as indicated. I look forward to working together in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect toward the goal of disciplined budgetary practices and cooperative service to the citizens of South Carolina.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R333) H. 4925 -- Ways and Means Committee: AN ACT TO MAKE APPROPRIATIONS AND TO PROVIDE REVENUES TO MEET THE ORDINARY EXPENSES OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004; TO REGULATE THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH FUNDS; AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT DURING THE FISCAL YEAR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Rep. WILKINS spoke against the Veto.

Rep. HARRELL spoke against the Veto.

Rep. HARRELL continued speaking.

Veto 1. Part IA, Section 1, Department of Education, Division of Professional Development and School Quality, page 2, Other Operating Expenses, $298,030.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hagood                 Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Parks                  Perry
Phillips               E. H. Pitts            Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Duncan                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Owens                  Pinson                 M. A. Pitts
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            Stille

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

Veto 2. Part IA, Section 4, John De La Howe School, Administration, page 21, Other Personal Service, $1,952.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 M. A. Pitts            Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Lucas                  Owens                  E. H. Pitts
D. C. Smith            Stille                 Vaughn

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

Veto 3. Part IA, Section 4, John De La Howe School, Administration, page 21, Other   Operating Expenses, $10,181.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
G. M. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Lucas                  Owens                  E. H. Pitts
D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith            Stille
Vaughn

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

Veto 4. Part IA, Section 4, John De La Howe School, Education, page 21, Other Operating Expenses, $15,076.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Mack
Mahaffey               McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Ott                    Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Skelton                G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Limehouse              Lucas                  Martin
Owens                  E. H. Pitts            Sinclair
D. C. Smith            Stille                 Toole
Vaughn

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

Veto 5. Part IA, Section 5F, Coastal Carolina University, Education and General, Unrestricted, page 36, Other Operating Expenses, $500,000.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Jennings               Keegan                 Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
McCraw                 McGee                  Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
E. H. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Stewart
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

J. Brown               Duncan                 Hagood
Huggins                Kirsh                  Mahaffey
Martin                 McLeod                 Owens
Pinson                 M. A. Pitts            G. M. Smith
Stille                 Talley                 Taylor
Thompson

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

Veto 6. Part IA, Section 5G, Francis Marion University, Education and General, Unrestricted, page 38, Omega Project, $56,147.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clark                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Jennings               Keegan
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
E. H. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Kirsh
McLeod                 Merrill                Owens
Pinson                 Stille                 Thompson

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

Veto 7. Part IA, Section 5MB, Area Health Education Consortium, Consortium, General, page 65, Other Personal Services, $42,330.

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:

Allen                  Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Keegan                 Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Mack
Mahaffey               McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Kirsh
Limehouse              Lucas                  Merrill
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            Stille

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

Veto 8. Part IA, Section 5N, Technical and Comprehensive Education Bd, Instructional Programs, page 67, Florence Darlington - Operating, $500,000.

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:

Allen                  Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Keegan                 Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
E. H. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Duncan                 Hagood
Kirsh                  Mahaffey               Owens
Pinson                 D. C. Smith            Stille
Taylor                 Young

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

Veto 9. Part IA, Section 5N, Technical and Comprehensive Education Bd, Instructional Programs, page 67, Trident Tech - Culinary Arts, $775,000.

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:

Allen                  Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bowers
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Edge                   Freeman
Gilham                 Gourdine               Hagood
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Howard                 Jennings
Kennedy                Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Lourie                 Mack                   McCraw
McGee                  Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Skelton                G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Taylor
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Viers                  Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bingham                Clark                  Cobb-Hunter
Duncan                 Emory                  Frye
Huggins                Keegan                 Kirsh
Koon                   Lucas                  Mahaffey
Martin                 McLeod                 Ott
Owens                  Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Sinclair
D. C. Smith            Stille                 Talley
Thompson               Toole                  Vaughn
Walker

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

Veto 10. Part IA, Section 6, Educational Television Commission, Program and Services, Agency Services, General Support and Services, page 73, Other Operating Expenses, $184,144.

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:

Allen                  Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clark
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Hayes
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  Merrill                Stille

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

Veto 11. Part IA, Section 6, Educational Television Commission, Program and Services, Cultural and Performing Arts, page 73, Other Operating Expenses, $117,028.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Lloyd                  Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Martin
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Clemmons               Cotty                  Hagood
Keegan                 Kirsh                  Mahaffey
Merrill                Neilson                G. M. Smith
Stille

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

Veto 12. Part IA, Section 8, Dept of Health and Human Services, Program and Services, Health Services, Medical Contracts, page 77, Eligibility Contracts, $700,000.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Breeland
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Lourie
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Stewart
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Clark                  Cotty                  Duncan
Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Limehouse              Lucas                  McLeod
M. A. Pitts            Stille                 Talley
Young

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

Veto 13. Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Administration, page 81, Other Operating Expenses, $787,017.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clark                  Clyburn                Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Lloyd
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Toole                  Townsend
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Clemmons               Cotty                  Duncan
Keegan                 Kirsh                  Owens
Stille                 Thompson               Viers

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

Veto 14. Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Coastal Resource Improvement, page 82, Other Operating Expenses, $247,794.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clark
Clemmons               Clyburn                Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
E. H. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Sinclair               Skelton                G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Barfield               Cotty                  Duncan
Keegan                 Kirsh                  Owens
Pinson                 Simrill                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            Stille                 Thompson
Viers

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

Veto 15. Part IA, Section 9, Dept of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and Services, Coastal Resource Improvement, page 82, Hunting Is. Beach Renourishment, $5,000,000.

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:

Allen                  Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Breeland               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Gilham
Gourdine               Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Huggins
Jennings               Keegan                 Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
McCraw                 McGee                  Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         Neilson
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Taylor                 Toole                  Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Walker                 Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Branham                Cobb-Hunter            Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Hosey
Howard                 Kennedy                Kirsh
Lourie                 McLeod                 J. H. Neal
Ott                    G. M. Smith            Stille
Talley                 Thompson               Townsend
Viers                  Weeks

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

Veto 16. Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Air Quality Improvement, page 82, Other Operating Expenses, $181,459.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clark                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Duncan                 Gourdine
Hosey                  Keegan                 Kirsh
Owens                  M. A. Pitts            G. M. Smith
Stille                 Thompson               Viers

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

Veto 17. Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Land & Waste Management, page 83, Other Operating Expenses, $761,791.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clark                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Keegan                 Kirsh
Limehouse              Owens                  Simrill
Stille                 Thompson               Viers

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

Veto 18. Part IA, Section 9, Dept of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and Services, Family Health, Access to Care, page 85, Unclassified Positions, $138,073.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Jennings               Kennedy
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Taylor
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Delleney               Keegan
Kirsh                  Lucas                  Owens
Simrill                G. M. Smith            Stille
Talley                 Thompson               Toole
Viers

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

Veto 19. Part IA, Section 9, Dept of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and Services, Family Health, Access to Care, page 85, Other Personal Service, $56,895.

Rep. J. E. SMITH 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:

Allen                  Altman                 Bailey
Bales                  Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Barfield               Clemmons               Cotty
Duncan                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Limehouse              Owens                  Stille
Talley                 Tripp                  Viers

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

Veto 20. Part IA, Section 9, Dept of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and Services, Family Health, Access to Care, page 85, Lancaster Kershaw Health Center, $175,738.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clark                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Jennings               Keegan
Kennedy                Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Kirsh                  Merrill
G. M. Smith            Stille                 Talley
Tripp                  Weeks                  Young

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

Veto 21. Part IA, Section 9, Dept of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and Services, Family Health, Access to Care, page 85, Biotechnology Center, $547,620.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clark                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Sinclair               Skelton
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Snow                   Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bailey                 Cotty                  Keegan
Kirsh                  Merrill                Owens
M. A. Pitts            Simrill                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            Stille                 Talley
Viers                  Young

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

Veto 22. Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Health Care Standards Facility Service Development, Other Operating Expenses, page 87, $197,015.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Koon                   Leach                  Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  Phillips               E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Delleney               Keegan
Kirsh                  Merrill                Owens
D. C. Smith            Stille                 Viers

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

Veto 23. Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Health Care Standards Licensing, Other Operating Expenses, page 87, $94,753.

Rep. J. E. SMITH 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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harvin                 Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Jennings
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Parks                  Perry                  Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scott
Simrill                Skelton                G. M. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Keegan                 Kirsh
Owens                  D. C. Smith            Stille
Viers

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

Veto 24. Part IA, Section 9, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Health Surveillance, Vital Records, Other Operating Expenses, page 88, $12,681.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Skelton                G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Frye                   Keegan
Kirsh                  Martin                 Merrill
Owens                  E. H. Pitts            D. C. Smith
Stille

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

Veto 25. Part IA, Section 10, Dept of Mental Health, Programs and Services, Support Services, Administrative Services, page 94, Unclassified Positions, $275,197.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Branham                Breeland
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clark
Clemmons               Clyburn                Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hagood                 Hamilton
Harrell                Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Jennings
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
McCraw                 McGee                  Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Kirsh                  Martin                 Stille

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

I intended to vote to override Veto No. 25, H. 4925.

Rep. Chip Huggins

Veto 26. Part IA, Section 10, Dept of Mental Health, Programs and Services, Support Services, Administrative Services, page 94, Other Personal Services, $520,629.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hagood
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Stille
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Keegan                 Kirsh                  Limehouse
Merrill

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

Veto 27. Part IA, Section 11, Dept of Disabilities and Special Needs, Programs and Services, Regional Centers, page 100, Other Operating Expenses, $56,662.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
G. R. Smith            Stille

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

Veto 28. Part IA, Section 13, Department of Social Services, Programs and Services, Employment and Training Service, Case Management, page 111, Greenville Urban League, $18,389.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Mack
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Rhoad                  Rice                   Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Taylor                 Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Viers                  Walker
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bingham                Cotty                  Duncan
Hagood                 Huggins                Keegan
Kirsh                  Limehouse              Lucas
Mahaffey               Merrill                Owens
Quinn                  Simrill                G. M. Smith
Stille                 Talley                 Thompson
Vaughn                 Weeks

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

Veto 29. Part IA, Section 21, Forestry Commission, Forest Landowner Assistance, page 131, Forest Renewal Program, $200,000.

Rep. RHOAD 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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hagood                 Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Jennings
Keegan                 Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Stille
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Kirsh                  Merrill                G. R. Smith

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

Veto 30. Part IA, Section 22, Departmnet of Agriculture, Administrative Services, page 134, Other Personal Services, $35,000.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Huggins                Jennings               Keegan
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Kirsh                  Stille

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

Veto 31. Part IA, Section 22, Department of Agriculture, Consumer Services, page 134, Other Personal Services, $15,000.

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                 Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Breeland               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Merrill                Stille

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

Veto 32. Part IA, Section 24, Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research, Special Items, Waddell Mariculture, page 147, $400,000.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clark                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Huggins
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Mack                   Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cobb-Hunter            Cotty                  Hagood
Keegan                 Kirsh                  Lucas
Mahaffey               Pinson                 D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            Stille
Thompson               Young

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

Veto 33. Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Programs and Services, Tourism Sales and Marketing, page 151, Contributions, $377,586.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clark
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Keegan
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Duncan                 Hagood                 Kirsh
G. R. Smith            Stille

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

Veto 34. Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Programs and Services, Tourism Sales and Marketing, page 152, Palmetto Bowl, $380,000.

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                 Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Delleney               Edge                   Freeman
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hagood                 Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Keegan                 Koon
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Loftis
Mack                   Mahaffey               McCraw
McGee                  Merrill                Miller
Neilson                Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Toole                  Trotter
Umphlett               Viers                  Whipper
White                  Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allen                  Clark                  Cobb-Hunter
Davenport              Duncan                 Emory
Frye                   Kennedy                Kirsh
Lloyd                  Lourie                 Lucas
Martin                 McLeod                 Moody-Lawrence
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
M. A. Pitts            Richardson             Simrill
Sinclair               G. M. Smith            Stille
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Townsend               Tripp                  Vaughn
Walker                 Weeks

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

My vote on Veto No. 34, H. 4925, was in error. I intended to cast my vote as "No" to sustain the veto.

Rep. James E. Smith, Jr.

Veto 35. Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Programs and Services, Rec, Planning, Eng., page 152, Other Operating Expenses, $91,394.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clark                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Stille

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

Veto 36. Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Programs and Services, Communications, page 153, Other Operating $25,000.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Jennings
Keegan                 Koon                   Leach
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Clark                  Clyburn                Duncan
Frye                   Hagood                 Herbkersman
Huggins                Kennedy                Kirsh
Merrill                Moody-Lawrence         Ott
E. H. Pitts            Simrill                G. M. Smith
Stille                 Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Weeks

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

Veto 37. Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Programs and Services, Research and Policy, page 153, Classified Positions $211,020.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Jennings
Kennedy                Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Taylor                 Thompson               Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Clark                  Duncan                 Frye
Hagood                 Huggins                Keegan
Kirsh                  Merrill                Moody-Lawrence
Ott                    Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Simrill                G. M. Smith
Talley                 Toole

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

Veto 38. Part IA, Section 26, Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Administrative Services, page 151, Other Personal Services, $13,215.

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                 Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Koon                   Leach
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Walker
Weeks                  White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Clark                  Clyburn                Frye
Hagood                 Keegan                 Kennedy
Kirsh                  Merrill                Moody-Lawrence
Ott                    E. H. Pitts            Simrill
G. M. Smith            Stille                 Talley
Viers

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

Veto 39. Part IA, Section 27, Department of Commerce, Programs and Services, Community and Rural Development, page 156, Classified Positions $39,663.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Sinclair               Skelton                G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bingham                Clark                  Cotty
Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Limehouse              Merrill                Owens
Quinn                  Simrill                D. C. Smith
Stille                 Weeks

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

Veto 40. Part IA, Section 27, Department of Commerce, Programs and Services, Community and Rural Development, page 156, Unclassified Positions $75,000.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bales                  Barfield               Bowers
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Sinclair               Skelton                G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Talley                 Taylor                 Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bingham                Clark                  Cotty
Duncan                 Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  Merrill                Owens
Quinn                  Simrill                D. C. Smith
Stille                 Thompson

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

Veto 41. Part IA, Section 27, Department of Commerce, Programs and Services, Aeronautics, page 158, Unclassified Positions $82,759.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sinclair
Skelton                G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Talley                 Taylor                 Townsend
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bingham                Clark                  Cotty
Duncan                 Gourdine               Hagood
Keegan                 Kirsh                  Owens
Quinn                  Simrill                D. C. Smith
Stille                 Thompson               Toole
Tripp

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

Veto 42. Part IA, Section 53, Department of Transportation, Mass Transit, page 221, Aid to Other Entities, $100,990.
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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clark                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Edge                   Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hagood                 Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Littlejohn
Lourie                 Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  Phillips               E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Weeks                  White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Duncan                 Emory                  Keegan
Kirsh                  Limehouse              Loftis
Lucas                  Owens                  Pinson
Quinn                  Simrill                Stille
Thompson               Toole                  Walker

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

Veto 43. Part IA, Section 61, Adjutant General's Office, Other Operating Expenses, page 252, Funeral Caisson, $99,000.

Rep. J. E. SMITH 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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Keegan                 Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Martin                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rice
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Delleney               Hagood                 Kirsh
Mahaffey               Simrill                Stille
Tripp

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

Veto 44. Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Board Administration, Other Operating Expenses, page 258, $225,270.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
R. Brown               Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Trotter
Umphlett               Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Emory                  Keegan
Kirsh                  Mahaffey               Owens
D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith            Stille
Talley                 Tripp                  Vaughn

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

Veto 45. Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Office of Executive Director, Board Administration, page 258, Veterans' Memorial, $250,000.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Keegan                 Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Stille                 Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Kirsh

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

Veto 46. Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Economic Research, Other Operating Expenses, page 261, $110,400.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Branham                Breeland
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Freeman
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Mack                   Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Skelton
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Emory                  Keegan                 Kirsh
Lucas                  Mahaffey               Merrill
Owens                  D. C. Smith            Stille

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

Veto 47. Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Digital Cartography, Other Operating Expenses, page 261, $33,200.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clyburn
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Mack                   Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Emory                  Keegan                 Kirsh
Lucas                  Mahaffey               Stille

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

Veto 48. Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Budget and Analyses Division, Board of Economic Advisors, page 262, Other Operating Expenses, $122,992.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Duncan                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Mahaffey               Owens                  Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Stille

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

Veto 49. Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Office of Human Resources, Other Operating Expenses, page 262, $774,678.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Emory                  Keegan
Kirsh                  Lucas                  Merrill
E. H. Pitts            W. D. Smith            Stille

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

Veto 50. Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, Insurance and Grants Division, Office of Local Government, page 269, SC Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund, $30,000.

Rep. OTT 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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Edge                   Hinson                 Keegan
Kirsh                  Merrill                Perry
Quinn                  Stille

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

Veto 51. Part IA, Section 63, Budget and Control Board, State CIO Division, CIO Chief Technology Officer, page 271, Total CIO Chief Technology Officer, $313,883.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clyburn                Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Keegan                 Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
M. A. Pitts            Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Emory                  Kirsh
Owens                  Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
Quinn                  G. M. Smith            W. D. Smith
Stille

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

Veto 52. Part IB, Section 1.23, Department of Education, page 294, SDE: Mathematics and Science Unit of the Office of Curriculum and Standards.
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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McLeod                 Miller                 J.M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E.H. Pitts             M.A. Pitts             Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D.C. Smith             G.M. Smith
G.R. Smith             J.E. Smith             J.R. Smith
W.D. Smith             Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Duncan                 Hagood
Kirsh                  Merrill                Stille
Tripp

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

Veto 53. Part IB, Section 5A.27, Commission on Higher Education, page 322, CHE: Excellence Enhancement Program Additions.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clyburn
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  Miller                 J.M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E.H. Pitts             M.A. Pitts             Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                G.M. Smith             G.R. Smith
J.E. Smith             J.R. Smith             W.D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Toole                  Townsend
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Walker                 White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bingham                R. Brown               Cobb-Hunter
Cotty                  Hagood                 J. Hines
Keegan                 Kirsh                  Merrill
Owens                  Quinn                  D.C. Smith
Stille                 Thompson               Tripp
Viers                  Weeks                  Whipper

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

Veto 54. Part IB, Section 8.32, Department of Health and Human Services, page 328, DHHS: Prescription Reimbursement Payment Methodology.

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:

Allen                  Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                G. Brown
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrison               Harvin
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 J. M. Neal
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  Stille

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

Veto 55. Part IB, Section 8.43, Department of Health and Human Services, page 330, DHHS: Medicaid Quarterly Fiscal Impact Statements.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Hamilton               Harrell
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Koon                   Leach
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
Merrill                Miller                 J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Clyburn                Cotty                  Hagood
Keegan                 Kirsh                  Lucas
Rivers                 D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
Stille                 Talley

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

Veto 56. Part IB, Section 8.48, Department of Health and Human Services, page 330, DHHS: Ambulance Services Reimbursement.

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:

Anthony                Bailey                 Bales
Barfield               Bingham                Branham
Breeland               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J.H. Neal              J.M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
M.A. Pitts             Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
G.M. Smith             G.R. Smith             J.E. Smith
J.R. Smith             Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  Quinn                  Stille

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

Veto 57. Part IB, Section 13.20, Department of Social Services, page 344, DSS: C. R. Neal Learning Center.

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:

Allen                  Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clyburn
Coleman                Dantzler               Davenport
Duncan                 Edge                   Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Govan
Hamilton               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J.M. Neal              Neilson                Ott
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E.H. Pitts             M.A. Pitts             Quinn
Rhoad                  Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Sinclair               Skelton
D.C. Smith             G.M. Smith             G.R. Smith
J.E. Smith             J.R. Smith             Snow
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Delleney               Hagood
Keegan                 Kirsh                  Littlejohn
Lucas                  Merrill                Owens
Rice                   Simrill                G.M. Smith
Stille

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

Veto 58 Part IB, Section 13.28, Department of Social Services, page 345, DSS: Child Care Services Providers Reimbursement Rates.

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:

Allen                  Anthony                Bailey
Barfield               Bingham                Bowers
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Lourie                 Merrill                J. E. Smith
Stille

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

Veto 59. Part IB, Section 23.9, Clemson University - PSA, page 350, CU-PSA: Sandhills Revenue.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenprot
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Keegan                 Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E.H. Pitts             M.A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D.C. Smith             G.M. Smith             G.R. Smtih
J.E. Smith             J.R. Smith             Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire
Young   Wilkins   Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Kirsh                  Stille

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

Veto 60. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (2) P28-Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism: $1,998,501.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J.M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D.C. Smith
G.R. Smith             J. E. Smith            J.R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Littlejohn             Mahaffey               Stille
Tripp

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

Veto 61 Part IB, Section 24.22, Department of Natural Resources, page 353, DNR: Retirement Incentive.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Branham                Breeland               J. Brown
R. Brown               Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Limehouse
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Mack                   Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Skelton                J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Viers                  Walker                 Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bingham                Cato                   Cotty
Emory                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  Littlejohn             Lucas
Mahaffey               Merrill                Sinclair
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
Stille                 Toole                  Vaughn
Weeks

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

Veto 62. Part IB, Section 26.1, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 353, PRT: Canadian Day.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Gilham
Gourdine               Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Jennings
Keegan                 Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Mack
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Sinclair               Skelton                G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Townsend               Trotter
Umphlett               Viers                  Walker
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bingham                Cotty                  Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Frye
Govan                  Hagood                 Haskins
Huggins                Kennedy                Kirsh
Littlejohn             Lucas                  Mahaffey
Merrill                Ott                    Owens
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Simrill                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
Stille                 Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Tripp
Vaughn                 Weeks

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

Veto 63. Part IB, Section 26.6, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 353, PRT: Palmetto Bowl Funding.

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                 Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Delleney
Edge                   Freeman                Gourdine
Govan                  Hagood                 Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Jennings
Keegan                 Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Mack
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
Merrill                Miller                 J. M. Neal
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Toole                  Trotter                Umphlett
Viers                  Walker                 Whipper
White                  Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allen                  Davenport              Duncan
Emory                  Frye                   Kennedy
Kirsh                  Lourie                 Lucas
Mahaffey               McLeod                 Moody-Lawrence
Owens                  Parks                  M. A. Pitts
Richardson             Simrill                Sinclair
G. R. Smith            Stille                 Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Townsend
Tripp                  Vaughn                 Weeks

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

Veto 64. Part IB, Section 26.8, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 354, PRT: Litter Control Program Transfer.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                G. M. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Townsend               Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Walker
Weeks                  White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bingham                Frye                   Hagood
Keegan                 Kirsh                  Littlejohn
D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith            Stille
Toole                  Tripp                  Viers

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

Veto 65. Part IB, Section 26.11, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 354, PRT: Litter Control.

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:

Allen                  Bailey                 Bales
Barfield               Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Skelton                G. M. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Walker                 Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bingham                Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  Littlejohn             D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith            Stille                 Tripp
Viers                  Weeks

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

Veto 66. Part IB, Section 27.6, Department of Commerce, page 355, CMRC: Aeronautics Office Space Rental.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Keegan
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Scarborough
Scott                  Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Stille                 Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Kirsh

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

Veto 67. Part IB, Section 27.19, Department of Commerce, page 357, CMRC: Local Government Fund Repayment.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Stille                 Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh

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

Veto 68. Part IB, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 357, CMRC: Funding for I-73.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Keegan                 Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Kirsh                  Stille
Young

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

Veto 69. Part IB, Section 29A.1, S.C. Conservation Bank, pages 357-358, CB: Maintaining Database.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Coleman
Cooper                 Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hagood                 Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Hayes
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Limehouse
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Martin
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Owens
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scott
Simrill                Skelton                G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Trotter
Umphlett               Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Emory                  Herbkersman
Keegan                 Kirsh                  Littlejohn
Mahaffey               Moody-Lawrence         Scarborough
Sinclair               D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
Stille                 Tripp                  Vaughn

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

Veto 70. Part IB, Section 36.1, Department of Public Safety, page 365, DPS: Special Events Traffic Control.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Koon                   Leach
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  Loftis                 Scarborough
Stille                 Vaughn

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

Veto 71. Part IB, Section 47.4, Department of Insurance, page 378, INS: State Accident Fund.

Rep. HARRELL explained the Veto.

Rep. LOURIE 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:

Cooper                 Edge                   Freeman
Scarborough            Scott                  Tripp
Trotter                White                  Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Emory
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hagood                 Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Jennings               Keegan                 Kennedy
Kirsh                  Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Stille
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon

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

Veto 72. Part IB, Section 50.19, Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulations, page 380, LLR: Funeral Home Inspectors.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hosey
Howard                 Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Lloyd
Lourie                 Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         Neilson
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
M. A. Pitts            Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cobb-Hunter            Cotty                  Delleney
Gourdine               Hagood                 Hinson
Huggins                Keegan                 Kirsh
Littlejohn             Loftis                 Lucas
Merrill                J. M. Neal             Owens
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            Quinn
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            Stille
Toole                  Vaughn                 Young

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

Veto 73. Part IB, Section 56DD.42, Governor's Office, page 392, SLED-Video Poker.

Rep. BALES explained 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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bingham                Branham
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Howard
Huggins                Keegan                 Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                J. M. Neal
Neilson                Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Scarborough
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bales                  Barfield               Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Hagood                 Hayes                  Hosey
Kirsh                  Littlejohn             Lloyd
Mahaffey               Moody-Lawrence         Pinson
Quinn                  Rutherford             Scott
Stille                 Tripp

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

I inadvertently voted to override Veto No. 73, H. 4925. I meant to vote to sustain the veto. The one vote would not have made a difference, I just want to have my vote on record.

Rep. Mike Anthony

Veto 74. Part IB, Section 72.89, General Provisions, page 433, GP: Division of Aeronautics Transfer.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hagood
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Stille                 Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Weeks
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cooper                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Quinn                  Rutherford             White

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

Veto 75. Part IB, Section 72.104, General Provisions, page 436, GP: Secure Juvenile Confinement.

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:

Allen                  Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  J. M. Neal             Neilson
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cobb-Hunter            Cotty                  Gourdine
Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Littlejohn             Lucas                  McLeod
Merrill                Moody-Lawrence         Scarborough
G. M. Smith            Stille                 Weeks

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

Veto 76. Part IB, Section 72.111, General Provisions, page 438, GP: Prison Medical Services Study.

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:

Allen                  Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Gilham                 Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Martin                 McGee                  Merrill
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Taylor                 Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Littlejohn             Mahaffey               McLeod
Owens                  Scarborough            Simrill
Sinclair               G. R. Smith            Stille
Talley                 Thompson               Vaughn
Young

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

Veto 77. Part IB, Section 73.10, General Provisions, page 442, SR: Sale of Vehicles/Maintenance Facilities Closure Study.

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:

Allen                  Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Koon                   Leach                  Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
G. M. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Huggins                Keegan
Kirsh                  Lucas                  Merrill
Owens                  E. H. Pitts            D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith            Stille                 Talley

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

Veto 78. Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, H73 Vocational Rehabilitation.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Koon                   Leach                  Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Walker                 Weeks                  White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  Merrill                Scarborough
Stille

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

Veto 79. Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, J16 Department of Disabilities and Special Needs.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Edge
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hosey                  Huggins
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Scarborough            Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  McLeod                 Stille

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

I inadvertently failed to override Veto No. 79, H. 4925. I would have voted "Yes".

Rep. William Clyburn

Veto 80. Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, J20 Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  Merrill
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Owens                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Scarborough            Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  McLeod                 Stille

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

Veto 81. Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, L04 Department of Social Services.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mahaffey
Martin                 McGee                  Merrill
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  McLeod                 Scarborough
Stille

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

Veto 82. Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, L24 Commission for the Blind.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  Merrill
Moody-Lawrence         Neilson                Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Pinson
E. H. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  McLeod                 Stille

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

Veto 83. Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, B04 Judicial Department.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  Merrill
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
McLeod                 Stille

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

Veto 84. Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 443, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, N04 Department of Corrections.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mahaffey               Martin
Merrill                Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  McLeod                 Stille

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

Veto 85. Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 444, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, N08 Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
Merrill                Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  McLeod                 Stille

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

Veto 86. Part IB, Section 73.17, Statewide Revenue, page 444, SR: Repayment of Debt and Unobligated Funds, N12 Department of Juvenile Justice.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Coleman
Cooper                 Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
Merrill                Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
J. R. Smith            Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Cotty                  Hagood                 Keegan
Kirsh                  McLeod                 Stille

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

Veto 87. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (2) H67-Educational Television: $1,026,992.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gourdine
Govan                  Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Keegan                 Kirsh                  Stille

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

Veto 88. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (4) J04-Department of Health and Environmental Control: $7,675,331.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mahaffey
Martin                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Keegan                 Kirsh                  Stille
Tripp

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

I inadvertently voted on Veto 88, but had previously abstained from voting on Section 9 of the Appropriation Bill, H. 4925. Although Veto 88 does not directly relate to Section 9 of the Budget, it may relate indirectly.

Rep. Ben Hagood

Veto 89. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (9) H79-Department of Archives and History: $250,534.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Harrell                Harrison
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hosey                  Huggins
Keegan                 Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Littlejohn
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mahaffey               Martin                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Haskins                Hinson
Kirsh                  Limehouse              Merrill
Stille

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

Veto 90. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (10) H87-State Library: $481,745.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Jennings
Keegan                 Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Lourie
Lucas                  Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               E. H. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Kirsh                  Stille

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

Veto 91. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (11) H91-Arts Commission: $243,896.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
J. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jennings               Keegan                 Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Kirsh                  Merrill
Stille

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

Veto 92. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (12) H95-Museum Commission: $331,629.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Keegan
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Limehouse              Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Townsend               Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Kirsh                  Scarborough
Stille

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

Veto 93. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (13) P12-Forestry Commission: $1,006,311.

Rep. RHOAD 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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Stille

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

Veto 94. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (14) P20-Clemson University Public Service Activities: $2,753,047.

Rep. JENNINGS 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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Stille

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

Veto 95. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (16) P28-Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism: $1,998,501.
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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Cobb-Hunter            Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Huggins
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Merrill                Stille

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

Veto 96. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (20) R40-Department of Motor Vehicles: $1,937,247.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hosey
Huggins                Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McCraw                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Hinson                 Keegan
Kirsh                  Limehouse              Merrill
Scarborough            Stille

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

Veto 97. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 440, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (26) R28-Department of Consumer Affairs: $118,098.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               J. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Cobb-Hunter            Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Gourdine               Govan
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Rhoad                  Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Hinson                 Keegan
Kirsh                  Limehouse              Merrill
Pinson                 Quinn                  Scarborough
Stille                 Taylor

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

Veto 98. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (38) E04-Lieutenant Governor: $19,773.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Harrell                Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Limehouse              Littlejohn
Loftis                 Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Townsend               Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Weeks                  White                  Whitmire
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Merrill                Quinn                  Stille

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

Veto 99. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (39) E08-Secretary of State: $68,086.

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                 Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Branham                G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Jennings               Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Limehouse
Littlejohn             Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McGee                  McLeod
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Umphlett
Vaughn                 Viers                  Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kennedy
Kirsh                  Merrill                Scarborough
Stille                 Thompson

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

Veto 100. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (41) F03-Budget and Control Board: $2,661,363.

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                 Anthony                Bailey
Bales                  Barfield               Bingham
Bowers                 Branham                G. Brown
J. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Duncan
Edge                   Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Jennings               Koon
Leach                  Limehouse              Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Rhoad
Rice                   Rivers                 Rutherford
Scott                  Sinclair               D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Toole                  Townsend
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Keegan                 Kennedy                Kirsh
Scarborough            G. M. Smith            Stille
Thompson

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

Veto 101. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (42) F27-Budget and Control Board - Auditor: $225,018.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Lloyd                  Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               Martin
McCraw                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Scarborough            Scott                  Simrill
Sinclair               Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Snow
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Keegan                 Kennedy                Kirsh
Stille                 Tripp

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

Veto 102. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (47) J02 - Dept. of Health and Human Services: Columbia Urban League $9,000.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Emory                  Freeman
Frye                   Gilham                 Gourdine
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Jennings               Kennedy
Koon                   Leach                  Lee
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lloyd
Loftis                 Lourie                 Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Miller
Moody-Lawrence         Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Pinson                 Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Snow                   Stewart
Taylor                 Toole                  Townsend
Tripp                  Trotter                Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Hagood                 Huggins                Keegan
Kirsh                  Lucas                  Merrill
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Quinn
Scarborough            D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
Stille                 Talley                 Thompson
Umphlett

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

Veto 103. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (48) J02 - Dept. of Health and Human Services: Greenville Urban League $9,000.

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                 Anthony                Bales
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Gourdine               Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hosey
Jennings               Kennedy                Koon
Leach                  Lee                    Littlejohn
Loftis                 Lourie                 Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McGee
McLeod                 Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Rice                   Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sinclair
Skelton                G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Stewart                Taylor
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Barfield               Clemmons               Delleney
Duncan                 Hagood                 Hinson
Huggins                Keegan                 Kirsh
Limehouse              Lucas                  Merrill
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Simrill                D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith            Stille                 Talley
Thompson               Umphlett               Witherspoon

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

Veto 104. Part IB, Section 73.9, Statewide Revenue, page 441, SR: Personnel for Increased Enforcement Collections, (54) P21 - SC State PSA $152,013.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Cobb-Hunter
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Davenport              Delleney               Edge
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Gilham                 Govan                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Huggins                Jennings
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Lee                    Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Limehouse              Stille                 Tripp

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

Veto 105 Part IB, Section 1AA.1, Lottery Expenditure Account, page 315, LEA: Lottery Funds: $674,000 Department of Education - Governor's School for Science and Mathematics; and the remainder shall go to the Department of Education.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Frye                   Gilham
Govan                  Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Koon                   Leach                  Littlejohn
Lloyd                  Loftis                 Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
Martin                 McGee                  McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Simrill                Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Stewart                Talley                 Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Townsend
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood                 Keegan                 Kirsh
Limehouse              M. A. Pitts            Stille
Tripp                  Viers

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

Veto 106. Part IB, Section 1AA.1, Lottery Expenditure Account, pages 315-316, LEA: Lottery Funds.

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:

Allen                  Altman                 Anthony
Bailey                 Bales                  Barfield
Bingham                Bowers                 Branham
Breeland               G. Brown               J. Brown
R. Brown               Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Emory
Freeman                Gilham                 Hamilton
Harrell                Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            J. Hines
M. Hines               Hinson                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jennings
Keegan                 Kennedy                Leach
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
Lourie                 Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               Martin                 McCraw
McGee                  McLeod                 Moody-Lawrence
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Rice                   Richardson             Rivers
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Simrill                Sinclair
Skelton                G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Snow                   Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Trotter                Umphlett
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Wilkins
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Frye                   Hagood                 Kirsh
Koon                   Limehouse              Merrill
D. C. Smith            Stille                 Tripp
Vaughn                 Viers

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

I was required to leave early on May 26, 2004, to attend the funeral of my nephew. If I had been in attendance, I would have voted to override all the budget vetoes on H. 4925, as provided by Governor Sanford, excepting Veto No. 72, which the House voted to sustain.

Rep. Marty Coates

Rep. CLEMMONS moved to reconsider the vote whereby the following Joint Resolution was given a second reading:

S. 532 (Word version) -- Judiciary Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII-A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PERTAINING TO ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS AND BEVERAGES, SO AS TO REGULATE THEIR SALE IN CONTAINERS OF SUCH SIZE AS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE.

Rep. COLEMAN moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. BARFIELD demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allen                  Anthony                Bales
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
J. Brown               R. Brown               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Davenport
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Govan                  J. Hines               M. Hines
Hosey                  Howard                 Jennings
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Koon
Lee                    Lloyd                  McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal             Ott
Perry                  Phillips               Richardson
Rivers                 Rutherford             Scott
Simrill                G. M. Smith            J. E. Smith
Snow                   Talley                 Weeks
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Barfield               Bingham                Cato
Ceips                  Chellis                Clemmons
Cooper                 Cotty                  Dantzler
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Gilham                 Hagood                 Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Herbkersman            Hinson
Huggins                Keegan                 Leach
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
McCraw                 Neilson                Owens
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Rice
Sandifer               Scarborough            Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Stewart
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 Whipper                White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

So, the House refused to adjourn.

The question then recurred to the motion to reconsider.

Rep. SCOTT moved to table the motion.

Rep. SCOTT demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allen                  Anthony                Bales
Branham                Breeland               R. Brown
Coleman                Davenport              Emory
Freeman                Govan                  Hayes
J. Hines               M. Hines               Hinson
Hosey                  Howard                 Jennings
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Lee
Littlejohn             Lloyd                  Loftis
McGee                  McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Moody-Lawrence         J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 Quinn
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Scott                  Simrill                G. M. Smith
J. E. Smith            Snow                   Thompson
Weeks

Those who voted in the negative are:

Barfield               Bingham                Bowers
G. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Frye
Gilham                 Hagood                 Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Haskins                Herbkersman            Huggins
Keegan                 Koon                   Leach
Limehouse              Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               McCraw
J. H. Neal             Owens                  E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rhoad                  Rice
Sandifer               Scarborough            Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Stewart
Talley                 Taylor                 Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon

So, the House refused to table the motion to reconsider.

The question then recurred to the motion to reconsider.

Rep. RUTHERFORD demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Barfield               Bingham                Bowers
G. Brown               Cato                   Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Delleney
Edge                   Gilham                 Hagood
Hamilton               Harrell                Harrison
Harvin                 Haskins                Herbkersman
J. Hines               Huggins                Keegan
Kennedy                Koon                   Leach
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lourie
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
McCraw                 Owens                  Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Rice
Sandifer               Scarborough            Sinclair
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Stewart
Stille                 Talley                 Taylor
Toole                  Townsend               Tripp
Trotter                Umphlett               Vaughn
Viers                  Walker                 White
Whitmire               Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allen                  Anthony                Bales
Branham                Breeland               R. Brown
Clyburn                Coleman                Davenport
Emory                  Freeman                Frye
Govan                  Hayes                  M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Howard
Jennings               Kirsh                  Lee
Lloyd                  Loftis                 McGee
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Perry
Phillips               Quinn                  Rhoad
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Scott                  Simrill                G. M. Smith
J. E. Smith            Snow                   Thompson
Weeks                  Whipper

So, the motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution the yeas and nays were taken on the passage of the Joint Resolution, resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Barfield               Bingham                Bowers
Cato                   Ceips                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cooper
Cotty                  Dantzler               Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Gilham
Hagood                 Hamilton               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Herbkersman            Huggins                Keegan
Kennedy                Leach                  Limehouse
Littlejohn             Lourie                 Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               McCraw
McLeod                 Miller                 J. M. Neal
Neilson                Owens                  Pinson
E. H. Pitts            Rice                   Sandifer
Scarborough            Sinclair               Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Stewart                Stille
Talley                 Taylor                 Toole
Townsend               Tripp                  Trotter
Umphlett               Vaughn                 Viers
Walker                 White                  Whitmire
Wilkins                Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allen                  Anthony                Bales
Branham                Breeland               R. Brown
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Davenport
Emory                  Freeman                Govan
Hayes                  J. Hines               M. Hines
Hinson                 Hosey                  Jennings
Kirsh                  Koon                   Lee
Lloyd                  Loftis                 McGee
Merrill                Moody-Lawrence         J. H. Neal
Ott                    Perry                  Phillips
M. A. Pitts            Quinn                  Rhoad
Richardson             Rivers                 Rutherford
Scott                  Simrill                G. M. Smith
J. E. Smith            Snow                   Thompson
Weeks                  Whipper

So, the Joint Resolution was read second time and ordered to third reading.

The following was introduced:

H. 5379 (Word version) -- Reps. Townsend, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Koon, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stewart, Stille, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Tripp, Trotter, Umphlett, Vaughn, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND THANK THE HONORABLE JOANNE GILHAM OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND FOR HER MERITORIOUS SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND AS A DEDICATED MEMBER OF THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AND THE RULES COMMITTEE AND TO WISH HER WELL IN ALL OF HER FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

Whereas, Representative JoAnne Gilham will retire in June of 2004 having represented the citizens of Beaufort County composing House District 123 since 1999; and
Whereas, Representative Gilham's colleagues in the House of Representatives were deeply saddened to learn that she is not seeking reelection to the House of Representatives in 2004; and
Whereas, born in Columbia to parents Hubert Felder and Evelyn Withers Goldson, she attended the University of South Carolina and Luther Rice Seminary; and
Whereas, Representative Gilham is the devoted wife of Louis Benjamin Gilham, Jr., and together they raised five children: Sherry, Leslye, Joanie, Lynne, and Trey; and
Whereas, she is the loving grandmother of eleven grandchildren: Caylee, Krystin, Danielle, Petie, Morgan, David, Regan, Emma, Jeffery, Brighton, and Ben; and
Whereas, her love of children led her to the noble field of teaching and then to service as a guidance counselor where her kind nature and congenial but determined personality served her students well; and
Whereas, no stranger to public service, she was a member of the Board of Directors of the Forest Beach Association from 1987 to 1989, a member of the Board of Directors for Beaufort County Community in Schools from 1996-1999, a member of the Advisory Board of SCETV-WJWJ from 1996 to 1997, a member of Professional Women of Hilton Head in 1998, and a charter member of the Bluffton Lions Club; and
Whereas, an active and valued member of the Republican Party, Representative Gilham currently serves on the Credentials Committee of the Beaufort County Republican Party, served as the Recording Secretary of the Hilton Head Island Republican Club from 1998-2001, as Vice Chairman of the Republican Caucus from 1999-2000, as Vice Chairman of the Beaufort County Legislative Delegation, as Secretary-Treasurer of the General Assembly's Women's Caucus, and as a member of the House Republican Women's Caucus; and
Whereas, as a member of the House of Representatives, Representative Gilham distinguished herself as a leader on both the Rules Committee and on the House Education and Public Works Committee where she served with unwavering dedication as the Chairman of the Motor Vehicles Subcommittee; and
Whereas, courageous and always putting the best interests of the people of South Carolina first, she was the chief sponsor of two of the most significant pieces of legislation passed in recent years; and
Whereas, in a hard-fought battle, she realized her goal of passing the historic D.U.I. .08 bill which lowered the alcohol concentration at which a person may be inferred to be under the influence of alcohol from .10 to .08 bringing South Carolina in line with the majority of states in the nation and making our State a better and safer place to live and work; and
Whereas, she worked diligently as the primary sponsor and advocate of the DMV Reform Act which separated the Department of Motor Vehicles from the Department of Public Safety so that it could ultimately be more efficient and responsive to the needs of the citizens of South Carolina; and
Whereas, beloved by the members of the House of Representatives and the staff alike, she is known as a woman of faith who is respected and admired for her generous spirit and her tenacity and her numerous contributions during her tenure in the House of Representatives will be remembered for generations to come; and
Whereas, Representative Gilham's quiet, yet effective leadership style in the House of Representatives sets an example that should not be soon forgotten. She serves as an inspiration to all who are privileged to know and love her and is an exemplary role model for women in particular; and
Whereas, the House of Representatives is pleased to express its heartfelt appreciation for her loyal and selfless public service as an elected representative and to note her numerous accomplishments during her service. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the members of the House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, commend and thank the Honorable JoAnne Gilham of Hilton Head Island for her meritorious service as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and as a dedicated member of the House Education and Public Works Committee and the Rules Committee and wish her well in all of her future endeavors.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to our great friend and distinguished colleague, Representative JoAnne Gilham.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5380 (Word version) -- Rep. Harrison: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE THE SOUTH CAROLINA BEER WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION ON THE OCCASION OF ITS SIXTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO THEM FOR THE FUTURE.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5381 (Word version) -- Reps. Scott, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Koon, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stewart, Stille, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Umphlett, Vaughn, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO WELCOME BRIGADIER GENERAL ABRAHAM TURNER BACK TO SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO COMMEND HIM ON BECOMING THE FORTY-FIRST COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING CENTER AT FORT JACKSON.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5382 (Word version) -- Rep. Rivers: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND THOMAS C. "TOM" DAVIS OF BEAUFORT UPON HIS DEPARTURE FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO HIM IN ALL OF HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5383 (Word version) -- Rep. Rivers: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND RHONDA CRADLE OF HARDEEVILLE FOR HER OUTSTANDING ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND HER SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO HER IN ALL OF HER FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5384 (Word version) -- Reps. Whitmire and Sandifer: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 76 IN OCONEE COUNTY FROM THE VILLAGE OF LONG CREEK TO THE CHATTOOGA RIVER THE "MATHESON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY" AND INSTALL APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ALONG THIS PORTION OF HIGHWAY THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "MATHESON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY".
The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

The following was introduced:

H. 5385 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Koon, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stewart, Stille, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Umphlett, Vaughn, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE LIEUTENANT MICHAEL THOMAS ON RECEIVING THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD MERITORIOUS PUBLIC SERVICE AWARD AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO HIM IN ALL OF HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 5386 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Koon, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stewart, Stille, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Umphlett, Vaughn, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE SERGEANT CHISOLM FRAMPTON ON RECEIVING THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD MERITORIOUS PUBLIC SERVICE AWARD AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO HIM IN ALL OF HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 5387 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Koon, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stewart, Stille, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Umphlett, Vaughn, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE MAJOR ALVIN A. TAYLOR ON RECEIVING THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD MERITORIOUS PUBLIC SERVICE AWARD AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO HIM IN ALL OF HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 5388 (Word version) -- Rep. G. Brown: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE REVEREND MICHAEL B. HENDERSON FOR EIGHT YEARS OF FAITHFUL SERVICE AS PASTOR OF BETHEL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES FOR HIS CONTINUED SUCCESS AT BETHEL UNITED.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 5389 (Word version) -- Reps. Miller, Breeland, Altman, Mack, Scarborough and Whipper: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 17 IN CHARLESTON COUNTY BETWEEN DOAR ROAD AND SEEWEE ROAD THE "WILLIAM H. ALSTON HIGHWAY" AND PLACE APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ALONG THIS PORTION OF HIGHWAY THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "WILLIAM H. ALSTON HIGHWAY".
The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

The following was introduced:

H. 5390 (Word version) -- Reps. McLeod, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Koon, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stewart, Stille, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Umphlett, Vaughn, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE PALMETTO HEALTH HOSPICE ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF CARING, COMPASSIONATE SERVICE TO SOUTH CAROLINA PATIENTS AND FAMILIES AND TO ENCOURAGE CITIZENS TO INCREASE THEIR AWARENESS OF THE IMPORTANCE AND AVAILABILITY OF HOSPICE SERVICES AND TO OBSERVE THIS MONTH WITH APPROPRIATE ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

Rep. RICE moved that the House do now adjourn, which was agreed to.

The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:

H. 5205 (Word version) -- Rep. Cobb-Hunter: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE SECTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 6 FROM THE POINT WHERE IT MERGES WITH SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 45 IN THE TOWN OF EUTAWVILLE TO THE BERKELEY COUNTY LINE AS THE "DANNY BELL MEMORIAL HIGHWAY".

H. 5221 (Word version) -- Rep. Walker: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 9 IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH OLD FURNACE ROAD TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH CLARK/BIBLE CHURCH ROAD "NOLEN RYAN HUTCHINGS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE SIGNS OR MARKERS ALONG THIS PORTION OF HIGHWAY CONTAINING THE WORDS "NOLEN RYAN HUTCHINGS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY".

H. 5336 (Word version) -- Rep. Frye: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE W. WYMAN KING ACADEMY KNIGHTS BASEBALL TEAM, OF BATESBURG IN SALUDA COUNTY, ON WINNING ITS SECOND CONSECUTIVE SOUTH CAROLINA INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CLASS A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE AND TO COMMEND THE HARD WORK AND DETERMINATION OF THE PLAYERS, COACHES, STAFF, AND OTHER SCHOOL OFFICIALS FOR THEIR 2004 CLASS A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WIN.

H. 5354 (Word version) -- Rep. Bowers: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE CHARMING TOWN OF HAMPTON COURT HOUSE ON ITS ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY, AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS GREAT TOWN.

H. 5355 (Word version) -- Rep. Bowers: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE HAMPTON COUNTY GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER ON THE OCCASION OF ITS ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO THE PAPER FOR THE FUTURE.

H. 5356 (Word version) -- Reps. Cotty, Lourie and Howard: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE MR. GERALD KEITH PRICE UPON BEING NAMED PRINCIPAL OF E. L. WRIGHT MIDDLE SCHOOL.

H. 5361 (Word version) -- Reps. Perry, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Koon, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stewart, Stille, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Umphlett, Vaughn, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE AND HONOR WILLIAM "WILL" CONE RICHARDSON OF AIKEN COUNTY ON ACHIEVING THE ELITE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WITH THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND TO WISH HIM FURTHER SUCCESS IN ALL OF HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

At 5:00 p.m. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. RICE adjourned to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

This web page was last updated on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 3:25 P.M.