Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 12:00 noon.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by Rev. Charles E. Seastrunk, Jr. as follows:
Our thought for today is from Proverbs 15:33: "The fear of the Lord teaches wisdom, humility comes before honor."
Let us pray. O Lord our God, help us to trust the promises You make us and help us to believe when there is faith in the future, there is power in the present. Put into out hearts that all things are possible when we trust God. Bestow Your mercy and compassion upon Rep. Fletcher Smith and his family. Let them know of Your presence and care. Grant Your blessings on our Nation, President, State and her leaders. Keep our defenders of freedom safe. O Lord, hear our prayer. Amen.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE.
After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, the SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE ordered it confirmed.
Rep. M. A. PITTS moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Staff Sgt. William "Bill" Ginn, which was agreed to.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 19, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Senators Hayes, Short and Jackson of the Committee of Conference on the part of the Senate on H. 3499:
H. 3499 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Wilkins, Townsend, Leach, Bales, G. R. Smith, J. R. Smith, Battle, Cobb-Hunter, Neilson, Clark, Harrison, Skelton, Moody-Lawrence, Rice, Harvin, Ott, J. E. Smith, Merrill, Mack, Hinson, Cotty, Norman, Talley, Chellis, Hardwick, Clemmons, Bailey, Dantzler, Walker, Cooper, E. H. Pitts, Ballentine, Bowers, Huggins and Hagood: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 10, ENTITLED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS, TO TITLE 59 SO AS TO ESTABLISH PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION A STUDENT IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH FIFTH GRADE MUST RECEIVE EACH WEEK ON A PHASED-IN BASIS, PROVIDE FOR A MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PROVIDE FOR A PHYSICAL EDUCATION ACTIVITY DIRECTOR, PROVIDE CERTAIN NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, PROVIDE THAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SHALL REMOVE CERTAIN FOOD AND DRINKS FROM VENDING MACHINES, PROVIDE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS MUST HAVE TO EAT LUNCH, PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DISTRICT LEVEL AND AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEVEL COORDINATED SCHOOL HEALTH ADVISORY COUNCIL AND PROVIDE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES, PROVIDE FOR NUTRITIONAL EDUCATION, AND PROVIDE A MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 19, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Conference on H. 3155:
H. 3155 (Word version) -- Reps. Townsend, Wilkins, Walker, Littlejohn, Battle, Clark, Cobb-Hunter, Simrill, Sandifer, Haley, Brady, Hagood, Talley, G. R. Smith and Neilson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 59 TO TITLE 59 SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CURRICULUM ORGANIZED AROUND A CAREER CLUSTER SYSTEM THAT MUST PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH BOTH STRONG ACADEMICS AND REAL-WORLD PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS; TO AMEND SECTION 59-17-135, RELATING TO CHARACTER EDUCATION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TRAITS WHICH MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO SCHOOL BOARD POLICIES ADDRESSING CHARACTER EDUCATION; TO AMEND SECTION 59-18-900, RELATING TO SCHOOL REPORT CARDS, SO AS TO EXPAND THE CONTENT OF THE REPORT CARD TO INCLUDE, DROPOUT REDUCTION DATA; AND TO REPEAL ACT 450 OF 1994 AND SECTION 59-52-95 RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION ACT OF 1994.
The Report of the Committee of Conference, having been adopted by both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and the Act enrolled for ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The Senate amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
S. 618 (Word version) -- Senators Alexander, Setzler, Short, Verdin and Knotts: A BILL TO ENACT THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PRESERVATION AND INVESTMENT REFORM ACT BY AMENDING SECTION 9-1-1790, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE EARNING LIMIT APPLICABLE TO RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM WHO RETURN TO COVERED EMPLOYMENT, SO AS TO REQUIRE THESE MEMBERS TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS; BY AMENDING SECTION 8-11-620, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LUMP SUM PAYMENTS FOR ANNUAL LEAVE FOR STATE EMPLOYEES, SO AS TO POSTPONE THIS LUMP SUM FOR TERI PARTICIPANTS UNTIL THE EMPLOYEE ENDS TERI PARTICIPATION; BY AMENDING SECTION 9-1-2210, RELATING TO THE TERI PROGRAM, SO AS TO REQUIRE TERI PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS, TO DELAY UNTIL A MEMBER ENDS PARTICIPATION THE INCLUSION OF THE APPLICABLE AMOUNT OF THE MEMBERS UNUSED ANNUAL LEAVE IN THE CALCULATION OF AVERAGE FINAL COMPENSATION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECALCULATION OF AVERAGE FINAL COMPENSATION WHEN THE MEMBER ENDS PARTICIPATION IN TERI FOR PURPOSES OF THE MEMBERS' FUTURE RETIREMENT BENEFITS OR OF A BENEFICIARY OF FUTURE BENEFITS ON THE DEATH OF A TERI PARTICIPANT WHO ELECTED A SURVIVOR OPTION, TO PROVIDE THAT A TERI PARTICIPANT UPON ENDING TERI PARTICIPATION MUST LEAVE COVERED EMPLOYMENT AND IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RETURN TO COVERED EMPLOYMENT WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT OR THE SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS; BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-1-490 AND 9-1-1520 SO AS TO ESTABLISH TWO CLASSES OF SERVICE FOR PERSONS BECOMING SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM MEMBERS AFTER 2005 AND PROVIDE A RETIREMENT OPTION FOR THESE PERSONS AT ANY AGE WITH TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF CREDITABLE SERVICE WITH A PENALTY FACTOR FOR THEIR EARLY RETIREMENT, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9-1-10, 9-1-1020, 9-1-1140, 9-1-1510, 9-1-1515, 9-1-1550, AND 9-1-1660, ALL AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, SERVICE CREDIT, RETIREMENT AND EARLY RETIREMENT, AND CALCULATION OF BENEFITS FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO CLOSE TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF CREDITABLE SERVICE RETIREMENT AT ANY AGE FOR PERSONS BEGINNING PARTICIPATION IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM AFTER 2005, TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS, TO DESIGNATE THOSE PERSONS "GRANDFATHERED" AS SCRS28 PARTICIPANTS, TO DESIGNATE PARTICIPANTS AFTER 2005 AS SCRS30 PARTICIPANTS AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR RETIREMENT QUALIFICATIONS, SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE ELECTION OF CLASS B SERVICE WITH A HIGHER MULTIPLIER, HIGHER EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS, AND PENALTY FOR RETIREMENT BEFORE THIRTY YEARS OF CREDITABLE SERVICE AND TO MAKE CONFORMING AMENDMENTS; BY AMENDING 9-1-1310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD AS TRUSTEE OF THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO CONFORM THIS REFERENCE TO THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMISSION ESTABLISHED IN THIS ACT AND ALLOW EQUITY INVESTMENTS AS PERMITTED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE; BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9-16-10, 9-16-80, AND 9-16-90, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, MEETINGS, AND REPORTING FOR PURPOSES OF INVESTMENTS OF RETIREMENT SYSTEM FUNDS BY THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, SO AS TO CONFORM THESE PROVISIONS TO THE ROLE OF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMISSION ESTABLISHED IN THIS ACT; BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 9 OF THE 1976 CODE, SO AS TO REVISE THE DUTIES OF THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS INVESTMENT PANEL, ESTABLISH THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMISSION AND PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERS, POWERS, AND DUTIES AS TRUSTEE OF THE ASSETS AND INVESTOR OF THE FUNDS OF THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, CONFORM THE INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS TO THE ROLE OF THIS COMMISSION INCLUDING THE VESTING IN IT OF ALL INVESTMENT AUTHORITY AND THE ELIMINATION OF A MAXIMUM LIMIT ON EQUITY INVESTMENTS AND ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR FIDUCIARIES; BY AMENDING SECTION 8-17-310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE STATE EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ACT, SO AS TO EXEMPT EMPLOYEES OF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMISSION; BY AMENDING SECTION 30-4-70, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO MEETINGS EXEMPT FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, SO AS TO CONFORM THE EXEMPTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, TO PROVIDE FOR AN ASSUMED INVESTMENT RETURN ON RETIREMENT SYSTEM ASSETS OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT PERCENT A YEAR, AND TO PROVIDE TRANSITION PROVISIONS.
Rep. KIRSH explained the Senate Amendments.
The House refused to agree to the Senate amendments and a message was ordered sent accordingly.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 24, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully invites your Honorable Body to attend in the Senate Chamber at 1:15 p.m. today for the purpose of Ratifying Acts.
Very respectfully,
President
On motion of Rep. TOWNSEND the invitation was accepted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4160 (Word version) -- Reps. Battle and M. Hines: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE SINCERE SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UPON THE DEATH OF MR. THADDEUS ROGERS OF MULLINS IN MARION COUNTY, AND TO CONVEY THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4161 (Word version) -- Rep. Wilkins: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE CHRIST CHURCH EPISCOPAL SCHOOL GIRLS CROSS COUNTRY TEAM OF GREENVILLE ON ITS 2005 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP CROSS COUNTRY TITLE, AND TO HONOR THE PLAYERS AND THEIR COACH, RODNEY ADAMEE, ON AN EXCEPTIONAL SEASON.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was taken up for immediate consideration:
H. 4162 (Word version) -- Rep. Wilkins: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE PLAYERS, COACHES, AND OTHER SCHOOL OFFICIALS OF THE CHRIST CHURCH EPISCOPAL SCHOOL BOYS SOCCER TEAM OF GREENVILLE AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPEAKER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONGRATULATING AND HONORING THEM ON WINNING THE 2005 CLASS A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the privilege of the floor of the South Carolina House of Representatives is extended to the players, coaches, and other school officials of the Christ Church Episcopal School Boys Soccer Team of Greenville at a date and time to be determined by the Speaker for the purpose of congratulating and honoring them on winning the 2005 Class A State Championship title.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was taken up for immediate consideration:
H. 4163 (Word version) -- Rep. Wilkins: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE PLAYERS, COACHES, AND OTHER SCHOOL OFFICIALS OF THE CHRIST CHURCH EPISCOPAL SCHOOL GIRLS CROSS COUNTRY TEAM OF GREENVILLE AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPEAKER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONGRATULATING AND HONORING THEM ON WINNING THE 2005 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP CROSS COUNTRY TITLE.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the privilege of the floor of the South Carolina House of Representatives is extended to the players, coaches, and other school officials of the Christ Church Episcopal School Girls Cross Country Team of Greenville at a date and time to be determined by the Speaker for the purpose of congratulating and honoring them on winning the 2005 State Championship Cross Country title.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4164 (Word version) -- Rep. Wilkins: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO HONOR THE CHRIST CHURCH EPISCOPAL SCHOOL BOYS SOCCER TEAM OF GREENVILLE ON ITS 2005 CLASS A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE AND TO HONOR THE PLAYERS AND THEIR COACHES, DAVID WILCOX AND BRENT ROBERTS, ON ANOTHER EXTRAORDINARY SEASON.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:
H. 4165 (Word version) -- Reps. M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Umphlett, E. H. Pitts, Loftis, Whipper, Witherspoon, Haley, Hardwick, Agnew, Anderson, Vaughn, Mahaffey, Leach, Bales, Clemmons, Cooper, Littlejohn, Owens, Taylor, Weeks and Whitmire: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-3-316, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRITERIA FOR HIRING NATURAL RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, SO AS TO REVISE THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs
H. 4166 (Word version) -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 57-23-815 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MUST BEAUTIFY THE ROADSIDES ALONG THE TWO ON-RAMPS AND THE TWO OFF-RAMPS AT EXIT 75 ON INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 85 IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2005.
On motion of Rep. DAVENPORT, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
H. 4171 (Word version) -- Rep. Bingham: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 59 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MAY ISSUE "PARROT HEAD" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES.
Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works
S. 103 (Word version) -- Senators Hayes and Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 20 TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA DIETETICS LICENSURE ACT" SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF DIETETICS AND TO PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERS, POWERS, AND DUTIES; TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF PERSONS ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF DIETETICS OR NUTRITION, INCLUDING ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR LICENSURE AND LICENSE RENEWAL; TO ESTABLISH THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE FOR DIETITIANS; AND TO PROVIDE GROUNDS FOR MISCONDUCT AND PENALTIES FOR MISCONDUCT, INCLUDING CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs
S. 473 (Word version) -- Senators Lourie, J. V. Smith, Short, Bryant, Reese, Rankin, Ford, Matthews, Verdin, Malloy, Leventis, Pinckney, O'Dell, Setzler, Cleary, Jackson, Anderson, Mescher, Hutto, Sheheen, McGill, Alexander, Thomas, Ryberg, Patterson, Leatherman, Elliott, Land and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-220, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED TO VETERANS MUST BE EXTENDED TO A VETERAN'S SURVIVING SPOUSE WHO ESTABLISHES RESIDENCY IN THIS STATE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DEATH OF THE VETERAN, IF THE VETERAN, BUT FOR RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS, COULD HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE EXEMPTION.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means
S. 570 (Word version) -- Senators Fair, Campsen, Anderson, Cromer, Williams, Verdin, Sheheen, Hawkins, Scott, Bryant and Thomas: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 13, TITLE 24, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, BY ADDING ARTICLE 12 SO AS TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH DAY REPORTING CENTERS FOR CERTAIN INMATES.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary
S. 671 (Word version) -- Senator Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-3575 SO AS TO ALLOW A TAX CREDIT OF FIFTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PREMIUMS PAID BY A TAXPAYER PURSUANT TO AN INDIVIDUAL POLICY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE, UP TO THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR FOR EACH COVERED INDIVIDUAL, AND TO PROHIBIT A DOUBLE BENEFIT.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means
S. 850 (Word version) -- Senators Knotts, Elliott, Gregory, Malloy, McConnell, Ford, Mescher, Martin, Alexander, Verdin, Williams, Cromer, Cleary, Grooms, Ryberg, Bryant, Ritchie, Rankin, Matthews, Richardson, Hutto, Land, Setzler and Jackson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-50, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BEGINNER'S PERMIT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SO AS TO REVISE THE PERIOD OF TIME A PERSON WHO HAS NEVER HELD A FORM OF DRIVER'S LICENSE MUST HOLD A BEGINNER'S PERMIT BEFORE BEING ELIGIBLE FOR FULL LICENSURE.
Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works
S. 854 (Word version) -- Senator Pinckney: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 30-5-10, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS' DUTIES BY A CLERK OF COURT IN CERTAIN COUNTIES, SO AS TO ADD JASPER COUNTY TO THE LIST OF THOSE COUNTIES WHICH HAVE BOTH A REGISTER OF DEEDS AND A CLERK OF COURT; AND TO AMEND SECTION 30-5-12, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF A REGISTER OF DEEDS, SO AS TO ADD JASPER COUNTY TO THE LIST OF COUNTIES IN WHICH THE GOVERNING BODY APPOINTS THE REGISTER OF DEEDS.
On motion of Rep. RIVERS, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
S. 855 (Word version) -- Senators Knotts, Courson, Cromer and Setzler: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-380, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN LEXINGTON COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE AND RENAME CERTAIN VOTING PRECINCTS OF LEXINGTON COUNTY AND REDESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO CORRECT ARCHAIC REFERENCES.
Referred to Lexington Delegation
S. 863 (Word version) -- Senator McGill: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-520, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE CERTAIN VOTING PRECINCTS IN WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY, TO REDESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO CORRECT ARCHAIC REFERENCES.
Referred to Williamsburg Delegation
The following was introduced:
H. 4167 (Word version) -- Rep. Bales: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO OFFER THE WARMEST CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. AND MRS. MARION B. "MUTT" SKIPPER OF COLUMBIA ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR TWENTY-FIFTH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY AND TO EXTEND TO THEM EVERY GOOD WISH FOR SUCCESS, HEALTH, AND CONTINUED HAPPINESS IN THE YEARS TO COME.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
On motion of Rep. G. BROWN, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:
H. 4168 (Word version) -- Rep. G. Brown: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR TO THE PLAYERS, COACHES, AND SCHOOL OFFICIALS OF THE LEE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL LADY STALLIONS BASKETBALL TEAM OF LEE COUNTY AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPEAKER, TO CONGRATULATE THEM ON THEIR IMPRESSIVE STATE AA BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE, AND TO HONOR THE PLAYERS AND THEIR COACH, DOROTHY FORTUNE, ON ANOTHER EXTRAORDINARY SEASON.
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, extend the privilege of the floor to the players, coaches, and school officials of the Lee Central High School Lady Stallions Basketball Team of Lee County at a date and time to be determined by the Speaker, to congratulate them on their impressive State AA Basketball Championship title, and to honor the players and their coach, Dorothy Fortune, on another extraordinary season.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4169 (Word version) -- Reps. Scott, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, 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, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND RECOGNIZE DEACON CURTIS GANTT OF SALUDA COUNTY FOR HIS OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO HIS COMMUNITY AND STATE AND ACKNOWLEDGE HIS MANY ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4170 (Word version) -- Rep. Walker: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS OF MR. JOHN FLOYD LAWRENCE OF LANDRUM, FORMER EDITOR AND MANAGER OF THE "LANDRUM NEWS LEADER", AND ONE OF LANDRUM'S MOST RESPECTED CITIZENS, UPON HIS DEATH.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4172 (Word version) -- Rep. McLeod: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR DR. V. KEITH CALLICUTT FOR HIS OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AS SUPERINTENDENT OF NEWBERRY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO EXPRESS GRATITUDE AND APPRECIATION FOR HIS TIRELESS EFFORTS AND DEEP COMMITMENT TO THE EDUCATION AND GROWTH OF SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SCHOOLCHILDREN, AND TO WISH HIM THE BEST IN HIS NEW POSITION AS SUPERINTENDENT OF YORK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 AND IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
The Resolution was adopted.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 553 (Word version) -- Senator Hawkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ENACT NO INCREASES IN PAYROLL TAXES, NO CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS, AND OPTIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS.
The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 860 (Word version) -- Senator McConnell: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE TWO TOWERS OF THE NEW ARTHUR RAVENEL BRIDGE IN CHARLESTON AS THE "JOHN P. GRACE TOWER" AND THE "SILAS N. PEARMAN TOWER" RESPECTIVELY IN HONOR OF THE MEN FOR WHOM THE TWO OLD BRIDGES THAT WILL BE REPLACED BY THE ARTHUR RAVENEL BRIDGE WERE NAMED AND TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT TO ERECT MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACES REFLECTING THIS DESIGNATION.
The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows:
Agnew Allen Altman Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Norman Ott Owens Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice 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 Tripp Umphlett Vaughn Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Tuesday, May 24.
Brenda Lee Denny Neilson Anne Parks Thayer Rivers Becky Martin Jeffrey D. Duncan Carl Anderson Thad Viers
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE granted Rep. F. N. SMITH a leave of absence for the day due to a death in the family.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE granted Rep. HARVIN a leave of absence for the week due to illness.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE granted Rep. COATES a leave of absence for today and tomorrow due to business reasons.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE granted Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE a leave of absence for the week due to medical reasons.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE granted Rep. WILKINS a leave of absence for the day to attend confirmation hearings in Washington, D.C.
Announcement was made that Dr. Gordon B. Sherard III of Spartanburg is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.
In accordance with House Rule 5.2 below:
"5.2 Every bill before presentation shall have its title endorsed; every report, its title at length; every petition, memorial, or other paper, its prayer or substance; and, in every instance, the name of the member presenting any paper shall be endorsed and the papers shall be presented by the member to the Speaker at the desk. After a bill or resolution has been presented and given first reading, no further names of co-sponsors may be added. A member may add his name to a bill or resolution or a co-sponsor of a bill or resolution may remove his name at any time prior to the bill or resolution receiving passage on second reading. The member or co-sponsor shall notify the Clerk of the House in writing of his desire to have his name added or removed from the bill or resolution. The Clerk of the House shall print the member's or co-sponsor's written notification in the House Journal. The removal or addition of a name does not apply to a bill or resolution sponsored by a committee."
Bill Number: H. 4047 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
05/24/05 COTTY
Bill Number: H. 4047 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
05/24/05 D. C. SMITH
Bill Number: H. 3194 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
05/24/05 CLARK
Bill Number: H. 3214 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
05/24/05 CLARK
Bill Number: H. 4154 (Word version)
Date: REMOVE:
05/24/05 THOMPSON
The following Bills and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
H. 4142 (Word version) -- Rep. Clyburn: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT THE EDGEFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES SHALL HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING BEFORE A REDISTRICTING PLAN MAY BE APPROVED.
H. 3915 (Word version) -- Reps. Pinson, Parks, Anthony and M. A. Pitts: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-11-325 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WHICH ONLY PROVIDES SEWAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES TO UTILIZE ANY METHOD OF FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER LATERAL COLLECTION LINES NOTWITHSTANDING OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW.
Rep. PINSON explained the Bill.
S. 47 (Word version) -- Senators Cromer, Elliott, Fair, Ford and Ritchie: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-652, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FIRST DEGREE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FIRST DEGREE CARRIES A MINIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF TEN YEARS, NO PART OF WHICH MAY BE SUSPENDED OR PROBATION GRANTED; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-653, RELATING TO CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE SECOND DEGREE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE SECOND DEGREE CARRIES A MINIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF FIVE YEARS, NO PART OF WHICH MAY BE SUSPENDED OR PROBATION GRANTED; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-655, RELATING TO CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN ACTOR WHO HAS AT LEAST ONE PRIOR CONVICTION FOR A CRIME FOR WHICH THE ACTOR MUST REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 23-3-430 AND WHO ENGAGES IN SEXUAL BATTERY WITH A VICTIM WHO IS LESS THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Rep. G. M. SMITH explained the Bill.
H. 4141 (Word version) -- Reps. Rivers, Herbkersman and Chalk: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-1-385 SO AS TO CREATE THE BEAUFORT-JASPER ACADEMY FOR CAREER EXCELLENCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT, TERM, ATTENDANCE, AND REMOVAL OF ITS MEMBERS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATION, GOVERNANCE, AND COMPENSATION OF THE BOARD; TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING JULY 1, 2006, THE BEAUFORT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL MANAGE THE ACADEMY; AND TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2006, JASPER COUNTY SHALL SUBMIT PAYMENT TO BEAUFORT COUNTY BASED ON A PER STUDENT COST.
H. 4155 (Word version) -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF EMERGENCY HEALTH POWERS ACT, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 2962, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Rep. MACK explained the Joint Resolution.
Rep. SCOTT moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill, which was adopted:
S. 808 (Word version) -- Senators Patterson, Courson, Lourie and Jackson: A BILL TO DEVOLVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT THE MEMBERS OF THE RICHLAND COUNTY RECREATION COMMISSION FROM THE RICHLAND COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.
The following Bill was taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments:
S. 97 (Word version) -- Senators Land, Elliott and Ford: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 31-7-25 SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY AVAILABLE FOR REDEVELOPMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT FOR COUNTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-20, RELATING TO EXISTING FINDINGS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT, SO AS TO EXTEND EXISTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-30, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT, SO AS TO REVISE APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS TO EXTEND THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO MORE RURAL AREAS AND ADD ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS NECESSARY TO ASSIST SUCH RURAL AREAS; TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-80, RELATING TO THE FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ORDINANCE, SO AS TO REVISE THESE FINDINGS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-120, RELATING TO JOINTLY ADOPTED MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT PLANS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE COUNTIES JOINTLY BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A MULTI-COUNTY OR REGIONAL AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PROPERTY WHEN SUCH PROJECTS HAVE ECONOMIC IMPACT BEYOND A SINGLE COUNTY AND PROVIDE FOR ALL SUCH AUTHORITIES TO ACT BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AND ORDINANCES OF COUNTIES PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT.
Rep. COOPER moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, May 25, which was adopted:
S. 589 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Drummond, Rankin, Land, McGill, Thomas, Moore, Fair, Ryberg, Setzler, Peeler, Reese and Verdin: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 43, TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COUNTY EQUALIZATION AND REASSESSMENT, BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-365, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE VALUE OF TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AND ANY INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF GOLF COURSE REAL PROPERTY FOR AD VALOREM TAX PURPOSES.
Rep. RICE moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, May 25, which was adopted:
S. 305 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler, J. V. Smith, Short, Alexander, Hayes, Moore, Lourie and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA MEDICAID MODERNIZATION ACT" INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO ADD ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 6, TITLE 44 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SHALL IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MEDICAID CARE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING ADMINISTERING CARE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR ROUTINE CARE AND IMPLEMENTING CARE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR CHRONIC DISEASE CARE; TO PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVE MEDICAID PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS COMMITTEE, WHICH SHALL RECOMMEND CLASSES OF DRUGS THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED ON A PREFERRED DRUG LIST AND CRITERIA FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREFERRED DRUG LIST PROGRAM; TO PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVE MEDICAID STATE AGENCY SERVICE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING PERIODIC MEETINGS OF DIRECTORS OF ALL STATE AGENCIES RECEIVING MEDICAID FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTROLLING THE GROWTH OF MEDICAID AND IMPROVING THE STATE MEDICAID PROGRAM AND TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT TO REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON MEDICAID EXPENDITURES AND TO CONDUCT PERIODIC AUDITS AND REVIEWS OF STATE AGENCIES RECEIVING MEDICAID FUNDS; TO ADD SECTION 44-6-110 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, DEVELOP MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION CRITERIA, TO CENTRALIZE MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY PROCESSING, AND TO CONDUCT AUDITS OF ELIGIBILITY FILES; TO AMEND SECTION 44-6-80, RELATING TO REPORTS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SO AS TO FURTHER SPECIFY THE CONTENTS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE REPORTS; TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 6, TITLE 44, RELATING TO CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, SO AS TO DELETE THESE PROVISIONS AND TO PROVIDE FOR MEDICAID FRAUD AND ABUSE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING PROVISIONS REQUIRING AUDITS, SANCTIONS, AND CONTRACTING WITH OTHER ENTITIES TO PREVENT MEDICAID FRAUD, ABUSE, AND WASTE; TO ADD SECTION 38-71-270 SO AS TO REQUIRE HEALTH INSURERS TO SUBMIT NAMES AND OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO USE IN IDENTIFYING MEDICAID RECIPIENTS WHO HAVE OTHER HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; TO ADD SECTION 44-6-112 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO FUND THE NET COSTS OF ANY THIRD PARTY LIABILITY AND DRUG REBATE COLLECTION EFFORTS FROM THE REVENUE COLLECTED IN THOSE EFFORTS; TO AMEND SECTION 43-3-65, RELATING TO COUNTIES PROVIDING OFFICE SPACE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, SO AS TO ALSO REQUIRE COUNTIES TO PROVIDE SPACE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ELIGIBILITY PROCESSING; AND TO REPEAL JOINT RESOLUTION 370 OF 2002 RELATING TO NURSING HOME BED FRANCHISE FEES.
Rep. SCOTT moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, May 25, which was adopted:
H. 3346 (Word version) -- Reps. Scott, Govan, J. Brown, McLeod, Clyburn, J. Hines, Hosey, Miller, M. Hines, Haskins, Phillips, J. H. Neal, Bales, Battle, Breeland, R. Brown, Howard, Jennings, J. E. Smith, Clark, Rutherford and Neilson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 45, TITLE 44 TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA CHILDREN'S HEALTH OBESITY ACT, INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO CREATE THE CHILD HEALTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE; TO PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP, POWERS AND DUTIES, INCLUDING DEVELOPING NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN HEALTH AND NUTRITION SPECIALISTS TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CONTINGENT UPON AVAILABLE FUNDING; TO REQUIRE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO CONVENE NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES; TO REQUIRE STUDENT AND SCHOOL REPORT CARDS TO CONTAIN CERTAIN HEALTH DATA; AND TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO REPORT TO CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 365 (Word version) -- Senators Leatherman and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 11-35-3030, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BOND AND SECURITY FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT PURSUANT TO THE STATE CONSOLIDATED PROCUREMENT CODE, SO AS TO REDUCE THE MAXIMUM RETENTION AMOUNT FOR EACH INSTALLMENT PENDING COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT FROM FIVE PERCENT TO THREE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT.
Rep. CHELLIS explained the Bill.
Rep. M. A. PITTS requested debate on the Bill.
The Bill was read second time and ordered to third reading.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 607 (Word version) -- Senators Lourie, J. V. Smith, Anderson, Hayes, Land, Malloy, Ford, Elliott, Richardson, Matthews, Patterson, Grooms, McConnell, Short, Williams, Cleary, Leventis, Martin, Hutto, Scott, Thomas and Jackson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 7 TO TITLE 37 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF CONSUMER CREDIT COUNSELING IN THIS STATE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, A WRITTEN CONTRACT, A THOROUGH BUDGET ANALYSIS, A TRUST ACCOUNT WITH AT LEAST QUARTERLY ACCOUNTINGS TO THE CONSUMER, A SURETY BOND, A LIMITATION ON FEES, REPORTS TO THE DEPARTMENT, A LIST OF PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR A VIOLATION, AND MAKING A VIOLATION AN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE SUBJECT TO THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT.
The Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\ 10905MM05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 37-7-102(b) as found in SECTION 1, page 2, beginning at line 6, by amending subsection (b) to read:
/ (b) This term does not include the following when acting in the regular course of their respective businesses and professions:
(i) attorneys at law;
(ii) banks, fiduciaries, credit unions, savings and loan associations, and savings banks as duly authorized and admitted to transact business in the state of South Carolina;
(iii) a certified public accountant providing credit counseling advice pursuant to an accounting practice;
(iv) title insurers and abstract companies doing escrow business;
(v) judicial officers or others acting pursuant to court order;
(vi) nonprofit faith-based organizations;
(vii) counselors certified by the South Carolina Housing Authority to the extent engaged in counseling pursuant to Chapter 23, High-Cost and Consumer Home Loans. These counselors must be certified by the Housing Authority pursuant to Section 37-23-40;
(viii) mortgage brokers, real estate brokers, salesmen, and property managers licensed pursuant to Chapter 57 of Title 40; and
(ix) consumer reporting agencies as defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681(a)(f) and any person or agency, or any affiliate or subsidiary of a consumer reporting agency, that obtains consumer reports from the agency under a certification pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(a) for the purpose of reselling the report, or information contained in or derived from the report, to a consumer, or monitoring information in the report on behalf of a consumer. /
Amend the bill further, Section 37-7-116(B) as found in SECTION 1, page 14 at lines 30-31, by deleting / a agreement/ and inserting / an agreement /. When amended subsection (B) shall read:
/ (B) A violation of this section renders an agreement between the licensee and the consumer void. /
Amend the bill further, Section 37-7-117(B)(1) as found in SECTION 1, page 15, line 1, by deleting /actual damages, but not less than one thousand dollars; / and inserting / actual damages; /. When amended, Section 37-7-117(B)(1) shall read:
/ (1) actual damages; /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. SCARBOROUGH explained the amendment.
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. 637 (Word version) -- Senators Jackson, Malloy, J. V. Smith, Matthews, Reese, Short, McGill, Leventis, Ford, Williams, Patterson and Pinckney: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 68, TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF STAFF LEASING SERVICES, SO AS TO CHANGE THE TERM "STAFF LEASING SERVICES" TO "PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER ORGANIZATIONS" AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE EMPLOYEES TO BUSINESSES GENERALLY ON A LONG TERM BASIS; AND AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO REQUIRE TWO YEARS OF INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE TO BE LICENSED AND TO PROVIDE A GRANDFATHER PROVISION FOR EXISTING LICENSEES PROVIDING THESE SERVICES; TO ESTABLISH CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS; TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS TO USE AN ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION TO CERTIFY THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER ORGANIZATION FOR LICENSURE; TO SPECIFY INSURANCE INFORMATION THAT AN ORGANIZATION MUST PROVIDE TO EMPLOYEES AND THE DEPARTMENT; AND TO FURTHER SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS WHEN PROVIDING EMPLOYEE INSURANCE.
The Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\NBD\ 11818AC05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 40-68-90, page 14 by deleting lines 24 through 29 and inserting:
/ (B) An applicant for a restricted license is exempt from the requirements of Section 40-68-40(C) and (F).
(C) An applicant for a nonresident or restricted license shall file on a form approved by the department an appointment of a recognized and approved entity as its attorney to receive service of legal process issued against it in this State./
Amend the bill further, Section 40-68-120(F) page 17 by deleting line 32 and inserting:
/both are deemed an employer and may sponsor and maintain benefit plans for/. So when amended Section 400-68-120(F) reads:
/ (F) A licensee may sponsor and maintain employee benefit plans for the benefits of assigned employees and client company both are deemed an employer and may sponsor and maintain benefit plans for assigned workers. An employee health benefit plan sponsored by a licensee for the benefit of assigned employees must be an insured health benefit plan offered by an insurer licensed under Title 38. The employee health benefit plans provided by a licensed insurance provider, including the use of third party administrators, must comply with the applicable provisions of the insurance laws of this State and other federal law, including The Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 USC Section 101 et seq. No licensee may maintain, sponsor, offer, endorse, or otherwise proffer self-insured, self-funded, or other plans for health benefits, that are not licensed with the Department of Insurance./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. SCARBOROUGH explained the amendment.
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. 588 (Word version) -- Senators Martin, Thomas, Bryant, McConnell, Alexander, Hayes and Malloy: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 35, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT, SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT OF 2005, PROVIDING FOR AN ENHANCED ROLE OF THE STATE IN SECURITIES REGULATION AND INVESTOR PROTECTION INCLUDING REGISTRATION OF INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS BY ISSUERS AND CONTROL PERSONS; REGISTRATION OF BROKER-DEALERS AND THEIR AGENTS AND INVESTMENT ADVISORS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES; EXPANDED INVESTIGATORY AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS THROUGH SUBPOENA POWER, CRIMINAL PENALTIES SET BY THE STATE, AND STATE CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY; FACILITATION OF ELECTRONIC FILING; AND INVESTOR EDUCATION; TO AMEND SECTION 31-13-200, RELATING TO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT NOTES AND BONDS; SECTION 35-6-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE UNIFORM TRANSFER ON DEATH SECURITY REGISTRATION ACT; SECTION 37-1-202, RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONSUMER PROTECTION CODE; SECTION 38-90-440, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE STATE REGISTRATION OF A CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY; AND SECTION 41-44-60, RELATING TO THE PALMETTO SEED CAPITAL FUND, ALL SO AS TO CONFORM CROSS-REFERENCES TO THE UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT OF 2005.
The Judiciary Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\10896MM05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 35-1-102(16)(C) as found in SECTION 1, page 50, by deleting line 22 and inserting:
/ 80b-3a) and is:/. When amended, the item shall read:
/ (C) is employed by or associated with a federal covered investment adviser, unless the individual has a 'place of business' in this State as that term is defined by rule adopted under Section 203A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Section 80b-3a) and is:
(i) an 'investment adviser representative' as that term is defined by rule adopted under Section 203A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Section 80b-3a); or
(ii) not a 'supervised person' as that term is defined in Section 202(a)(25) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Section 80b-2(a)(25)); or /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-102(22), page 51, by deleting lines 33-34 and inserting:
/ (22) 'Predecessor chapter' means Chapter 1 of Title 35 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976, prior to its amendment by the adoption of the South Carolina Uniform Securities Act of 2005. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-102, South Carolina Reporter's Comments 22, page 75, by deleting lines 21-24 and inserting:
/ 22. Section 35-1-102(22): The Uniform Securities Act of 2002 contained language to repeal an enacting State's existing securities laws and this section would have defined the repealed chapter. South Carolina opted to amend its existing laws rather than repeal them, so this definition is revised from the uniform language to reflect that procedure. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-202, South Carolina Reporter's Comments 18, page 104, by deleting line 20 and inserting:
/ may be denied, conditioned, limited, or revoked by the Securities /. When amended the Comment shall read:
/ 18. Section 35-1-202(18): No prior provision. This exemption may be denied, conditioned, limited, or revoked by the Securities Commissioner under Section 204. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-304, South Carolina Reporter's Comments 3, page 117, by deleting line 37 and inserting:
/ commissioner a matter of rulemaking authority rather than being /. When amended the comment shall read:
/ 3. Section 35-1-304(e) provides that the Securities Commissioner may, by rule or order, require a prospectus containing specified portions of the registration statement be provided to each person to which an offer is made. This subsection changes prior law found at former Section 35-1-990 by making delivery of a prospectus approved by the Securities Commissioner a matter of rulemaking authority rather than being mandated by statute. Also under prior law, the Securities Commissioner issued S.C. Regs. 113-10 concerning the submission of financial statements with a registration application. Pursuant to Section 35-1-605(a) and (c), the Securities Commissioner will have the authority to issue a similar regulation. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-305(e), page 118, by deleting line 25 and inserting:
/ (e) In the case of a nonissuer distribution, information or a /. When amended the subsection shall read:
/ (e) In the case of a nonissuer distribution, information or a record may not be required under subsection (i) or Section 35-1-304, unless it is known to the person filing the registration statement or to the person on whose behalf the distribution is to be made or unless it can be furnished by those persons without unreasonable effort or expense. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-306, South Carolina Reporter's Comments 4, page 128, by deleting lines 10-12 and inserting:
/ 4. The new provision in Section 35-1-306(b) encourages, to the extent practicable, the publication of standards by rule adopted or order issued by the Securities Commissioner of the types of conduct which violate Section 35-1-306(a)(7). Such standards are found in prior law at S.C. Regs. 113-11 through 113-14. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-306, South Carolina Reporter's Comments 7, page 128, by deleting lines 24-28 and inserting:
/ 7. Section 35-1-306(e) is substantially similar to prior law found at former Section 35-1-1040. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-401(b), page 129, by deleting line 25 and inserting:
/ (1) a broker-dealer without a place of business in this State if /. When amended the subsection shall read:
/ (1) a broker-dealer without a place of business in this State if its only transactions effected in this State are with:
(A) the issuer of the securities involved in the transactions;
(B) a broker-dealer registered as a broker-dealer under this chapter or not required to be registered as a broker-dealer under this chapter;
(C) an institutional investor;
(D) a nonaffiliated federal covered investment adviser with investments under management in excess of one hundred million dollars acting for the account of others pursuant to discretionary authority in a signed record;
(E) a bona fide preexisting customer whose principal place of residence is not in this State and the person is registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or not required to be registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is registered under the securities act of the State in which the customer maintains a principal place of residence;
(F) a bona fide preexisting customer whose principal place of residence is in this State but was not present in this State when the customer relationship was established, if:
(i) the broker-dealer is registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or not required to be registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is registered under the securities laws of the State in which the customer relationship was established and where the customer had maintained a principal place of residence; and
(ii) within forty-five days after the customer's first transaction in this State, the person files an application for registration as a broker-dealer in this State and a further transaction is not effected more than seventy-five days after the date on which the application is filed, or, if earlier, the date on which the Securities Commissioner notifies the person that the Securities Commissioner has denied the application for registration or has stayed the pendency of the application for good cause;
(G) not more than three customers in this State during the previous twelve months, in addition to those customers specified in subparagraphs (A) through (F) and under subparagraph (H), if the broker-dealer is registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or not required to be registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is registered under the securities act of the State in which the broker-dealer has its principal place of business; and
(H) any other person exempted by rule adopted or order issued under this chapter; and
(2) a person that deals solely in United States government securities and is supervised as a dealer in government securities by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the Office of Thrift Supervision. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-401, South Carolina Bar Comments 2, page 133, by deleting line 12 and inserting:
/ investors, and other broker-dealers. /. When amended the comment shall read:
/ 2. Section 35-1-401(b)(1): This section extends the exemption from registration in prior law to include broker-dealers dealing with a federal covered investment adviser, as set out in Section 35-1-401(b)(1)(D), and allows a window within which to register for broker-dealers who continue an existing "bona fide" relationship with a client who establishes a principal residence in South Carolina under Section 35-1-401(b)(1)(F). Section 35-1-401(b)(1)(G) modifies existing law by reducing the number of "other" customers from five to three and by excluding from that count all customers itemized in Section 35-1-401(b)(1)(A)-(H). Prior law excluded only issuers, financial and institutional investors, and other broker-dealers. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-406(a), page 142, by deleting line 27 and inserting:
/ Section 35-1-406. (a) A person shall register as a /. When amended the subsection shall read:
/ Section 35-1-406. (a) A person shall register as a broker-dealer, agent, investment adviser, or investment adviser representative by filing an application and a consent to service of process complying with Section 35-1-611, passing one or more examinations as required by the Securities Commissioner, paying the fee specified pursuant to Section 35-1-410, and paying any reasonable fees charged by the designee of the Securities Commissioner for processing the filing. The application must contain:
(1) the information or record required for the filing of a uniform application; and
(2) upon request by the Securities Commissioner, any other financial or other information or record that the Securities Commissioner determines is appropriate. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-411, South Carolina Reporter's Comments 3, page 153, by deleting line 35 and inserting:
/ amount of bond or other security by rule or order. /When amended the comment shall read:
/ 3. This section varies from the uniform text in Section 35-1-411(e) by allowing the Securities Commissioner to set the amount of bond or other security by rule or order. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-508, South Carolina Reporter's Comments 2, page 171, by deleting lines 31-37 and inserting:
/ 2. Subsection (b) continues and extends the Securities Commissioner's authority to refer evidence not only to appropriate law enforcement or licensing authorities within this State, including the proper division within the Attorney General's Office and the Statewide Grand Jury, but also to appropriate authorities in other states. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-509, South Carolina Reporter's Comments 6, page 178, by deleting line 40 and inserting:
/ 6. Subsections (d), (e), and (f) are new. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-509, South Carolina Reporter's Comments 8, page 179, by deleting line 4 and inserting:
/ 8. South Carolina, by a close vote within the task force that studied the Uniform Securities Act, added a new item (g)(5) / and by deleting line 11 and inserting:
/ "reckless disregard," "constructive knowledge," or mere /. When amended the first paragraph of the comment shall read:
/ 8. South Carolina, by a close vote within the task force that studied the Uniform Securities Act, added a new item (g)(5) which adopts aider and abettor liability for violations of Sections 35-1-501 and 35-1-502. This subsection is a departure from prior law, found at former Section 35-1-1500, and from the draft of the Uniform Securities Act propounded by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Item (g)(5) adopts the "actual knowledge" and "actual awareness" standards in lieu of "reckless disregard," "constructive knowledge," or mere "knowledge." This subsection also states that it cannot be read to create a duty of due diligence where one does not already exist nor can it be read to create liability for mere failure to exercise due diligence where a requirement exists. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-510(2), page 182, by deleting line 1 and inserting:
/ (2) the offer under paragraph (1) states that it must be accepted /. When amended the subsection shall read:
/ (2) the offer under paragraph (1) states that it must be accepted by the purchaser, seller, or recipient of investment advice regarding securities within 30 days after the date of its receipt by the purchaser, seller, or recipient of investment advice or any shorter period, of not less than three days, that the Securities Commissioner, by order, specifies; /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-602(e), page 186, by deleting line 15 and inserting:
/ self-incrimination, the Securities Commissioner may apply to the /. When amended the item shall read:
/ (e) An individual is not excused from attending, testifying, filing a statement, producing a record or other evidence, or obeying a subpoena of the Securities Commissioner under this chapter or in an action or proceeding instituted by the Securities Commissioner under this chapter on the ground that the required testimony, statement, record, or other evidence, directly or indirectly, may tend to incriminate the individual or subject the individual to a criminal fine, penalty, or forfeiture. If the individual refuses to testify, file a statement, or produce a record or other evidence on the basis of the individual's privilege against self-incrimination, the Securities Commissioner may apply to the Richland County Court of Common Pleas to compel the testimony, the filing of the statement, the production of the record, or the giving of other evidence. The testimony, record, or other evidence compelled under such an order may not be used, directly or indirectly, against the individual in a criminal case, except in a prosecution for perjury or contempt or otherwise failing to comply with the order. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-604(b), page 191, by deleting lines 18-19 and inserting:
/ investigation if a civil penalty or costs were sought becomes final as to that person by /. When amended the subsection shall read:
/ (b) An order under subsection (a) is effective on the date of issuance. Upon issuance of the order, the Securities Commissioner shall promptly serve each person subject to the order with a copy of the order and a notice that the order has been entered. The order must include a statement of any civil penalty or costs of investigation the Securities Commissioner will seek, a statement of the reasons for the order, and notice that, within 15 days after receipt of a request in a record from the person, the matter will be scheduled for a hearing. If a person subject to the order does not request a hearing and none is ordered by the Securities Commissioner within 30 days after the date of service of the order, the order, which may include a civil penalty or costs of the investigation if a civil penalty or costs were sought, becomes final as to that person by operation of law. If a hearing is requested or ordered, the Securities Commissioner, after notice of and opportunity for hearing to each person subject to the order, may modify or vacate the order or extend it until final determination. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-605(a)(4), page 193, by deleting line 21 and inserting:
/ required or permitted by rule or order adopted pursuant to this section, and /. When amended the item shall read:
/ (4) establish fees for filings under Section 35-1-504, filings required or permitted by rule or order adopted pursuant to this section, and other miscellaneous filings for which no fees are otherwise specified by law. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-609, page 200, by deleting line 24 and inserting:
/ Richland County Court of Common Pleas by filing in the court, /. When amended the section shall read:
/ Section 35-1-609. A person aggrieved by a final order of the Securities Commissioner may obtain a review of the order in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas by filing in the court, within thirty days after entry of the order, a written petition praying that the order may be modified or set aside in whole or in part. The aggrieved person, upon filing a petition, may move before the court in which the petition is filed to stay the effectiveness of the Securities Commissioner's final order until such time as the court has reviewed the order. If the court orders a stay, the aggrieved person must post any bond set by the court in which a petition is filed. A copy of the petition must be served upon the Securities Commissioner, and the Securities Commissioner shall certify and file in court a copy of the filing and evidence upon which the order was entered. When these have been filed, the court has exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, enforce or set aside the order, in whole or in part. The findings of the Securities Commissioner as to the facts, if supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, are conclusive. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-701, South Carolina Reporter's Comments 3, page 208, by deleting lines 19-20 and inserting:
/ chapter to be governed exclusively by existing law, i.e., the Uniform Securities Act, Chapter 1 of Title 35 as it existed prior to the enactment of this Act, the South Carolina Uniform Securities Act of 2005, for a one year /. When amended the comment shall read:
/ 3. Section 35-1-701(c), which was adopted: This provision allows offers or sales of offerings made in good faith prior to the effective date of this chapter to be governed exclusively by existing law, i.e., the Uniform Securities Act, Chapter 1 of Title 35 as it existed prior to the enactment of this act, the South Carolina Uniform Securities Act of 2005, for a one year period after the effective date. The expanded private and administrative remedies of this chapter would not, therefore, apply to any such offers or sales. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Section 35-1-702(b)(1), page 209, by deleting line 28 and inserting:
/ (b) The Attorney General may retain the first one million / and by deleting line 40 and inserting:
/ (c) The Attorney General may retain the first seven hundred /. When amended the item shall read:
/ (b) The Attorney General may retain the first one million five hundred thousand dollars from fee revenues collected pursuant to this chapter to be used for the operations of the Securities Division. The Attorney General may transfer to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division two hundred thousand dollars after retaining the first one million five hundred thousand dollars collected pursuant to this chapter to be retained, expended, and carried forward for the provision of investigators for the State Grand Jury. The funds transferred to the State Law Enforcement Division must be used only for purposes of the State Grand Jury, and may not be transferred to another program or used for another purpose.
(c) The Attorney General may retain the first seven hundred fifty thousand dollars received by the Division of Securities in a fiscal year in settlement of litigation enforcement action and reimbursements of expenses arising from violations under this chapter to offset investigative, prosecutorial, and administrative costs of enforcing this chapter. /
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, page 210, after line 2, by inserting:
/ South Carolina Reporter's Comments
Section 35-1-702 is a nonuniform provision setting fees and allowing the Attorney General to retain a portion of fees and of recoveries in civil or administrative enforcement actions. It consolidates several statutes under prior law. It increases the amount which may be retained by the Attorney General from civil or administrative enforcement actions, but generally continues prior law./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. SINCLAIR explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
Reps. SCARBOROUGH, CLEMMONS, SINCLAIR, MCLEOD and J. E. SMITH proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\10930MM05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 35-1-102(29)(A) and (B) as found in SECTION 1, page 52, beginning at line 27, and page 53, lines 1-4, by deleting subsection (29)(A) and (B) and inserting:
/ (29) 'Security' means any note; stock; treasury stock; security future; bond; debenture; evidence of indebtedness; certificate of interest or participation in a profit-sharing agreement; collateral trust certificate; preorganization certificate or subscription; transferable share; investment contract; voting trust certificate; certificate of deposit for a security; fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights; put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on a security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities, including an interest therein or based on the value thereof; put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency; or, in general, an interest or instrument commonly known as a 'security'; or a certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. The term:
(A) includes both a certificated and an uncertificated security;
(B) does not include an insurance or endowment policy or annuity contract under which an insurance company promises to pay a sum of money either in a lump sum or periodically for life or other specified period; /
Amend the bill further, South Carolina Reporter's Comments 29 as found on page 76, lines 30-32, by deleting /The new definition includes variable life insurance products that were excluded under prior law./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. SINCLAIR explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
Rep. G. M. SMITH moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, May 25, which was adopted:
S. 16 (Word version) -- Senators Moore, McConnell, Elliott, Hayes, Verdin, Alexander, Fair and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-1-60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIMES, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING METHAMPHETAMINE AS A VIOLENT CRIME; TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-110, RELATING TO THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, SO AS TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "PARAPHERNALIA", ADD THE DEFINITIONS OF "COCAINE BASE" AND "METHAMPHETAMINE", AND DELETE THE DEFINITION OF "CRACK COCAINE, ICE, OR CRANK"; TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-365, RELATING TO THEFT OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, SO AS TO INCLUDE THEFT OF PRECURSOR SUBSTANCES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-375, RELATING TO THE MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINE, SO AS TO MAKE POSSESSION OF EQUIPMENT USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO MANUFACTURE, AND TO INCLUDE A PUNISHMENT SCHEDULE FOR POSSESSION OF EPHEDRINE, PSEUDOEPHEDRINE, AND PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 227 (Word version) -- Senators Fair, Campsen and Leventis: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1695, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PERSONS FROM WHOM CONSENT OR RELINQUISHMENT FOR ADOPTION IS REQUIRED, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CONSENT OR RELINQUISHMENT IS NOT REQUIRED IF THE CHILD WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ADOPTION PROCEEDING WAS CONCEIVED AS A RESULT OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT OR INCEST; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1572, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS A GROUND FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS IF THE CHILD WAS CONCEIVED AS A RESULT OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT OR INCEST.
The Judiciary Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\NBD\11817AC05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. This act may be cited as "Autumn's Law".
SECTION 2. Section 20-7-1695(A) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 653 of 1988, is further amended to read:
"(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20-7-1690, consent or relinquishment for the purpose of adoption is not required of the following persons:
(1) a parent whose rights with reference to the adoptee have been terminated pursuant to subarticle 3, Article 11, Chapter 7 of Title 20; or
(2) a parent whom the family court finds to be mentally incapable of giving consent or relinquishment for the purpose of adoption and whom the court finds to be unlikely to provide minimally acceptable care of the adoptee and whose capacity is unlikely to be restored for a reasonable period of time, and, in the court's judgment, it would be detrimental to the adoptee to delay adoption. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an incompetent parent for whom there has been no prior appointment and shall appoint independent counsel for an incompetent parent who is indigent. However, upon good cause shown, the court may waive the requirement for the appointment of independent counsel for an incompetent and indigent parent.;
(3) the biological parent of a child conceived as a result of that parent's criminal sexual conduct or incest as found by a court of competent jurisdiction unless, with respect to a conviction for criminal sexual conduct, the sentencing court made a specific finding on the record that the conviction resulted from consensual sexual conduct where the victim was younger than the actor as contained in Section 16-3-655(3)."
SECTION 3. Section 20-7-1572 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 104 of 1999, is further amended by adding an appropriately numbered item to read:
"( ) conception of a child as a result of the criminal sexual conduct of a biological parent, as found by a court of competent jurisdiction, is grounds for terminating the rights of that biological parent unless the sentencing court made a specific finding on the record that the conviction resulted from consensual sexual conduct where the victim was younger than the actor as contained in Section 16-3-655(3)."
SECTION 4. Subarticle 3, Article 11, Chapter 7, Title 20 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 20-7-1573. (A) Notwithstanding Section 20-7-1572, if a person is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to violating Section 16-3-655 or any similar offense under the laws of another jurisdiction, that person's parental rights to any child conceived as a result of the conduct underlying the conviction or pleas are automatically terminated upon conviction or entry of a plea unless the sentencing court made a specific finding on the record that the conviction resulted from consensual sexual conduct where the victim was younger than the actor as contained in Section 16-3-655(3).
(B) If subsection (A) applies to automatically terminate the convicted parent's rights, the victim of the criminal sexual conduct is not required to follow the procedures set forth in this subarticle to formally terminate the convicted biological parent's rights.
(C) A certified copy of a sentencing sheet or a judgment of conviction reflecting the conviction or plea described in subsection (A) serves as an order terminating parental rights pursuant to Section 20-7-1574 and has the same effect as that specified in Section 20-7-1576.
(D) If the biological parent's conviction is reversed on appeal, the parent may petition the family court to restore his parental rights, subject to the following:
(1) The decision whether to restore the biological parent's rights must be made pursuant to Section 20-7-1572, including a finding whether maintaining the termination is in the best interest of the child.
(2) In adjudicating the petition and determining the best interests of the child, the family court may:
(a) make findings independent of the reversed conviction regarding whether the biological parent is guilty of violating subsection (1) or (2) of Section 16-3-655; if the court renders such a finding, the court shall enter an order pursuant to Sections 20-7-1574 and 20-7-1576 affirming termination of the parent's rights; and
(b) consider the basis on which the conviction was overturned."
SECTION 5. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. ALTMAN explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
Rep. G. M. SMITH moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, May 25, which was adopted:
S. 307 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler, Verdin, Cromer, Ryberg, Knotts, Alexander and Thomas: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-1885 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN IT IS LAWFUL TO DRIVE A VEHICLE IN THE LEFT LANE OF AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY, AND TO PROVIDE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A TRAFFIC TICKET MAY BE ISSUED FOR THE VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISION.
The following Bill was taken up:
H. 3162 (Word version) -- Reps. Duncan, M. A. Pitts, E. H. Pitts, Taylor, Anthony, W. D. Smith, J. M. Neal, Pinson, Hayes, Jennings, McGee, G. R. Smith, Wilkins, Vaughn, Young, Kirsh, Bailey, Battle, Witherspoon, Ballentine, Hinson, Mahaffey, Toole and Clark: A BILL TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA SPORTS OFFICIALS AND COACHES PROTECTION ACT" BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-611 TO THE 1976 CODE SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO COMMIT AN ASSAULT AND BATTERY UPON A SPORTS OFFICIAL OR COACH DURING AND AFTER AN ATHLETIC CONTEST AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS INCLUDING ENHANCED PENALTIES WHEN A WEAPON IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF ASSAULT AND BATTERY UPON A SPORTS OFFICIAL OR COACH.
The Judiciary Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20540SD05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 16-3-611 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 2, and inserting:
/Section 16-3-611. (A) A person commits the crime of assault and battery upon a sports official or coach when, in committing an assault and battery, he knows the individual assaulted to be a sports official or coach at any level of competition and the act causing the assault and battery to the sports official or coach occurred within an athletic facility or an indoor or outdoor playing field or within the immediate vicinity of the athletic facility or an indoor or outdoor playing field at which the sports official or coach was an active participant in the athletic contests held at the athletic facility. For the purposes of this subsection, 'sports official' means a person at an athletic contest who enforces the rules of the contest, such as an umpire or referee, and 'coach' means a person recognized as a coach by the sanctioning authority that conducted the athletic contest.
(B) The provisions of this section apply during the athletic contest and for a period of two hours following the conclusion of the athletic contest.
(C)(1) A person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, for a first offense when a weapon is not used must be punished by a term of imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or both.
(2) A person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, for a second or subsequent offense when a weapon is not used must be punished by a term of imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding seven thousand five hundred dollars, or both. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. G. M. SMITH explained the amendment.
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. 95 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Sheheen, Knotts and Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-17-445, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REGULATION OF UNSOLICITED CONSUMER TELEPHONE CALLS AND SECTION 34-36-40, RELATING TO LOAN BROKERS, BOTH SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS TO REQUEST A HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY REQUEST THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION IMPOSE A CIVIL FINE FOR A VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 37-6-106, RELATING TO THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, RATHER THAN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBPOENA; TO AMEND SECTIONS 37-6-108 AND 37-6-113, RELATING TO AN ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR TO REQUEST A HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT AND TO PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT'S ORDER AS PROVIDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT AND THE RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 37-6-401, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF PART 4, CHAPTER 6, TITLE 37 AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE LATTER; TO AMEND SECTION 37-6-414, RELATING TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CASES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO HAS EXHAUSTED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR AND WHO IS AGGRIEVED IS ENTITLED TO BRING A CONTESTED CASE HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 37-11-100, RELATING TO LICENSING AND REGULATION OF CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS TO REQUEST A HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT AND TO PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW'S ORDER AS PROVIDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT AND THE RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 37-16-70, RELATING TO PREPAID LEGAL SERVICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT BY A PREPAID LEGAL SERVICES COMPANY FOR A VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER, TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS MAY ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING THE CLUB REPRESENTATIVE TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE VIOLATION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE CLUB REPRESENTATIVE MAY REQUEST A HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; TO AMEND SECTIONS 39-61-100 AND 39-61-130, BOTH RELATING TO MOTOR CLUB SERVICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS TO REQUEST A HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT AND TO PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT'S ORDER AS PROVIDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT AND THE RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 40-39-150, RELATING TO PAWNBROKERS, SECTIONS 40-58-55, 40-58-80, AND 40-58-90, AS AMENDED, ALL RELATING TO MORTGAGE LOAN BROKERS, SECTION 40-68-160, RELATING TO REGULATION OF STAFF LEASING SERVICES, SECTION 44-79-80, RELATING TO PHYSICAL FITNESS SERVICES, SECTION 56-28-110, RELATING TO NOTIFICATION OF SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS OF A REPURCHASED MOTOR VEHICLE, AND SECTIONS 59-102-70 AND 59-102-170, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REGISTRATION OF ATHLETE AGENTS, ALL SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT AND TO PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT'S ORDER AS PROVIDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT AND THE RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 37-6-415 AND 37-11-110, RELATING TO APPEALS OF DECISIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS.
Reps. HARRISON and DELLENEY proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\10925MM05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/ SECTION 1. Section 16-17-445(F) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(F) The department shall investigate any complaints received concerning violations of this section. If the department finds has reason to believe that there has been a violation of this section, it may request a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Court to impose a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars for a first violation, two hundred dollars for a second violation, and one thousand dollars for a third or subsequent violation, and . The department may seek also bring a civil action in the Court of Common Pleas seeking other relief, including injunctive relief, as the court considers appropriate against the telephone solicitor. In addition, a person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction for a first or second offense, must be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days, and for a third or subsequent offense must be fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days. Each violation constitutes a separate offense for purposes of the civil and criminal penalties in this section."
SECTION 2. Section 34-36-40 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 452 of 1992, is amended to read:
"Section 34-36-40. (A) The department may investigate the actions of any person for compliance with this chapter.
(B) The department may request a hearing before the Administrative Law Court for an order requiring a loan broker to cease and desist whenever the department determines if it is determined that the loan broker has violated, is violating, or will violate any a provision of this chapter, any a regulation promulgated by the department, or any a written agreement entered into with the department.
(C) The department may request a hearing before the Administrative Law Court for an order requiring a loan broker to refund or reimburse any advance fee or any other fee taken in violation of Section 34-36-20 or taken as a result of a false, misleading, or deceptive representation as described in Section 34-36-20. Such an order may, but need not, be sought by the department in conjunction with a cease and desist order pursuant to subsection (B).
(D) The department may request a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Court impose and collect seeking the imposition of a civil administrative fine on behalf of the department against any person found to have violated any provision of this chapter, any regulation promulgated by the department, or any written agreement entered into with the department, in any amount not to exceed five thousand dollars for each violation."
SECTION 3. Section 37-6-106(3) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(3) Upon failure without lawful excuse to obey a subpoena or to give testimony and upon reasonable notice to all persons affected thereby, the Administrator administrator may apply to the court of common pleas Administrative Law Court for an order compelling compliance."
SECTION 4. Section 37-6-108 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 82 of 2001, is further amended to read:
"Section 37-6-108. (1)(A) After notice, and hearing the administrator may order a creditor, a person acting in on his behalf, or a person subject to this title to cease and desist from engaging in violations of this title. A respondent aggrieved by an order of the administrator may obtain judicial review of the order and the request a contested case before the Administrative Law Court in accordance with the Administrative Law Court's rules of procedure. The administrator may obtain a decree an order of the court for enforcement of its order in the court of common pleas from the Administrative Law Court for enforcement of his orders as provided in the Administrative Procedures Act and the Administrative Law Court's rules of procedure. The proceeding for review or enforcement is must be initiated by filing a petition in the court. with the Administrative Law Court in accordance with the Administrative Law Court's rules of procedure, and Copies copies of the petition request for a contested case hearing must be served upon all parties of record.
(2) Within thirty days after service of the petition for review upon the Administrator, or within any further time the court may allow, the Administrator shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the entire record upon which the order is based, including any transcript of testimony, which need not be printed. By stipulation of all parties to the review proceeding, the record may be shortened. After hearing, the court may (a) reverse or modify the order if the findings of fact of the Administrator are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record, (b) grant any temporary relief or restraining order it deems just, and (c) enter an order enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the order of the Administrator, or remanding the case to the Administrator for further proceedings.
(3) An objection not urged at the hearing shall not be considered by the court unless the failure to urge the objection is excused for good cause shown. A party may move the court to remand the case to the Administrator in the interest of justice for the purpose of adducing additional specified and material evidence and seeking findings thereon upon good cause shown for the failure to adduce this evidence before the Administrator.
(4)(B) The jurisdiction of the court Administrative Law Court shall be is exclusive, and its final judgment or decree order may be appealed in the manner provided by the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules. The administrator's copy of the testimony shall be available at reasonable times to all parties for examination without cost as provided in Sections 1-23-610 and 1-23-380.
(5)(C) A proceeding for review under request for a contested case hearing pursuant to this section must be initiated within thirty days after a copy of the order of the Administrator administrator is received. If no proceeding a request is so not initiated, the Administrator administrator may obtain a decree of the court of common pleas move for an order from the Administrative Law Court for enforcement of its his order upon a showing that the order was issued in compliance with this section, that no proceeding for review a request for a contested case hearing was not initiated within thirty days after a copy of the order was received, and that the respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of the court Administrative Law Court.
(6)(D) For purposes of this section and Sections 37-6-117 and 37-6-118, a violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act which arises arising out of the production, promotion, or sale of consumer goods, services, or interests in land is deemed to be considered a violation of this title subject to action by the administrator before the Administrative Law Court.
(7)(E) Unless otherwise specifically provided by law, the following administrative penalties, in the discretion of the administrator, may be levied against persons found to have engaged in violations of this title pursuant to subsection (1) (A) of this section:
(a)(1) If the violator is found to have violated repeatedly and intentionally any provision of this title, the violator must be fined in an amount not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars and not to exceed ten thousand dollars for any transaction or occurrence or set of transactions or occurrences which violated multiple provisions of this title.
(b)(2) If the violator is shown to have violated any a previous lawful order of the administrator or court tribunal of competent jurisdiction, the violator, in the discretion of the administrator, may be fined in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars for each violation.
(c)(3) The penalties in items (a) (1) and (b) (2) of this subsection are in addition to any other penalties provided by law or any other remedies provided by law.
(8)(F) The administrator administrative law judge may make findings and issue and enforce cease and desist orders regarding unconscionable conduct or unconscionable debt collection pursuant to this section, but he the administrative law judge may not award damage, treble damage, or attorney's fee remedies to affected customers in these hearings."
SECTION 5. Section 37-6-113 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 82 of 2001, is further amended to read:
"Section 37-6-113. (1)(A) After demand, the administrator may bring a civil action against a creditor or a person subject to this title to recover actual damages sustained and excess charges paid by one or more consumers who have a right to recover explicitly granted by this title. In a civil action under pursuant to this subsection, penalties may must not be recovered by the administrator. The court shall order amounts recovered under pursuant to this subsection to be paid to each consumer or set off against his obligation. A consumer's action, except a class action, takes precedence over a prior or subsequent action by the administrator with respect to the claim of that consumer. A consumer's class action takes precedence over a subsequent action by the administrator with respect to claims common to both actions, but the administrator may intervene. An administrator's action on behalf of a class of consumers takes precedence over a consumer's subsequent class action with respect to claims common to both actions. Whenever an action takes precedence over another action under pursuant to this subsection, the latter action may be stayed to the extent appropriate while the precedent action is pending and dismissed if the precedent action is dismissed with prejudice or results in a final judgment granting or denying the claim asserted in the precedent action. A defense available to a creditor in a civil action brought by a consumer is available to him in a civil action brought under pursuant to this subsection.
(2)(B) The administrator may bring a civil action against a creditor, a person acting in his behalf, or a person subject to this title to recover a civil penalty of no more than five thousand dollars for repeatedly and intentionally violating this title. A civil penalty pursuant to this subsection may must not be imposed for a violation of this title occurring more than two years before the action is brought.
(3)(C) The Administrator administrator may bring a civil action or an administrative action, as provided in Section 37-6-108, against a creditor for failure to file notification in accordance with the provisions on notification (Section 37-6-202) pursuant to Section 37-6-202 or to pay fees in accordance with the provisions on fees (Section 37-6-203) pursuant to Section 37-6-203 to recover the fees the defendant has failed to pay and a civil penalty in an amount determined by the court not exceeding the greater of three times the amount of fees the defendant has failed to pay or $1,000 one thousand dollars."
SECTION 6. Section 37-6-401 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 37-6-401. This part applies to the Administrator administrator, prescribes the procedures to be observed by him in exercising his powers under this title, and supplements the provisions of the Part on Powers and Functions of Administrator (Part 1) of this chapter and of the Part on Supervised Loans (Part 5) of the Chapter on Loans (Chapter 3). A conflict between the provisions of this part and the Administrative Procedures Act pursuant to Chapter 23, Title 1 or the rules governing practice before the Administrative Law Court must be resolved in favor of the Administrative Procedures Act and the rules governing practice before the Administrative Law Court."
SECTION 7. Section 37-6-414 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 37-6-414. (1)(A) A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available before the Administrator administrator and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case the administrator's determination is entitled to judicial review under this part. a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Court as provided in Section 1-23-600(D) and judicial review as provided in Sections 1-23-380(B) and 1-23-610. This section does not limit utilization of or the scope of judicial review available under other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo provided by law. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate action or ruling of the Administrator administrative law court is immediately reviewable immediately if review of the final decision of the Administrator Administrative Law Court would not provide an adequate remedy.
(2)(B) Proceedings for review Contested case proceedings are instituted by filing a petition in the court of common pleas within thirty days after mailing by certified mail notice of the final decision of the Administrator or, if a rehearing is requested, within thirty days after the decision thereon request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court according to the rules of procedure of the Administrative Law Court. Copies of the petition request for a contested case hearing shall must be served upon the Administrator administrator and all parties of record. The final decision of the administrative law judge may be appealed as provided for in Sections 1-23-380 and 1-23-610.
(3) The filing of the petition does not itself stay enforcement of the decision of the Administrator. The Administrator may grant, or the reviewing court may order, a stay upon appropriate terms.
(4) Within thirty days after the service of the petition, or within further time allowed by the court, the Administrator shall transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review. By stipulation of all parties to the review proceedings, the record may be shortened. A party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be taxed by the court for the additional costs. The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record.
(5) If, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding before the Administrator, the court may order that the additional evidence be taken before the Administrator upon conditions determined by the court. The Administrator may modify his findings and decision by reason of the additional evidence and shall file that evidence and any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court.
(6) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the Administrator, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral arguments and receive written briefs.
(7) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Administrator as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the Administrator or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(b) In excess of the statutory authority of the Administrator;
(c) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(d) Affected by other error of law;
(e) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(f) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."
SECTION 8. Section 37-16-70 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 37-16-70. (A) A prepaid legal services company violating this chapter is subject to any combination of the following: The department may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court if a prepaid legal services company violates a provision of this chapter and the prepaid legal services company is subject to any combination of the following:
(1) an administrative order to cease and desist from committing violations of this chapter;
(2) administrative fines up to five thousand dollars; and
(3) revocation or denial of registration.
(B) Upon satisfactory evidence that a prepaid legal services company representative has violated or failed to comply with a provision of this chapter or regulation promulgated pursuant to the authority of this chapter, the administrator may issue an order requiring the company representative to cease and desist from engaging in the violation or revoke or suspend the company representative's authority. A prepaid legal services company representative may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court if it believes it is aggrieved by the decision of the Administrator."
SECTION 9. Section 39-61-100 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 142 of 1991, is further amended to read:
"Section 39-61-100. (1) (A) The administrator may order the club to cease and desist, or may revoke, suspend, or refuse to continue the certificate of authority of a club, whenever, after a hearing and for cause shown, he determines that the club: The department may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court for an order requiring the club to cease and desist or an order revoking, suspending, or vacating the certificate of authority of a club, if the Administrative Law Court finds, after a hearing, that the club:
(a)(1) has violated or failed to comply with any provisions of this chapter or regulations promulgated under pursuant to the authority of this chapter;
(b)(2) has obtained a certificate of authority through wilful misrepresentation or fraud;
(c)(3) has engaged in fraudulent or deceptive practices;
(d)(4) has wilfully, orally or in writing, misrepresented the terms, benefits, privileges, and provisions of any service contract issued or to be issued by it or any other club;
(e)(5) is unable to meet its obligations as determined by generally accepted accounting principles;
(f)(6) has, after notice to the club of an alleged occurrence of any of items (a) (1) through (e) (5) of this section, refused without just cause to submit relevant information to the administrator with respect to the motor club services within this State.
(2) (B) In lieu Instead of revocation, suspension, or refusal to continue a certificate of authority for a violation or violations of items (a) (1) through (f) (2) of subsection (1) (A) of this section, the administrator in his discretion administrative law judge may assess an administrative penalty of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars for each violation. No An accumulation of these penalties may not exceed five thousand dollars for matters commenced in any calendar year. These penalties may be assessed in connection with orders to cease and desist."
SECTION 10. Section 39-61-130 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 155 of 1987, is further amended to read:
"Section 39-61-130. Upon satisfactory evidence that a club representative has violated or failed to comply with any a provision of this chapter or regulation promulgated under pursuant to the authority of this chapter, the Administrator administrator may issue an order requiring the club representative to cease and desist from engaging in the violation or may revoke or suspend the club representative's authority. A club representative aggrieved by an action of the administrator taken pursuant to this provision may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court."
SECTION 11. Section 40-39-150 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 40-39-150. (A) Upon the finding that an action of a pawnbroker is in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or of a law or regulation of this State or of the federal government or an agency of the state or federal government, the administrator, after reasonable notice to the pawnbroker and an opportunity for the pawnbroker to be heard, shall order the pawnbroker to cease and desist from the action may file a request with the Administrative Law Court for a contested case hearing in which the administrator may seek an order requiring the pawnbroker to cease and desist from the action.
(B) The Administrator of the Department of Consumer Affairs administrative law judge also may impose also administrative fines of up to seven hundred fifty dollars for each offense upon persons violating any of the provisions of this chapter up to a maximum of fifteen thousand dollars for the same set of transactions or occurrences. Each violation constitutes a separate offense. In addition, any a person violating the provisions of Sections 40-39-20 and 40-39-30 is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty days, or both. The administrator administrative law judge may revoke or suspend a pawnbroker's certificate of authority in addition to the penalties enumerated provided in this section."
SECTION 12. Section 40-58-55 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 7 of 2004, is further amended to read:
"Section 40-58-55. (A) The department may refuse to license an applicant or refuse to renew a license if it finds, after notice and a hearing pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, that the applicant or his agent has Upon request for a contested case hearing by a person whose application for a license or renewal of a license has been denied, the Administrative Law Court may review the determination by the department that the applicant or his agent has:
(1) violated a provision of this chapter or an order of the department;
(2) withheld material information in connection with an application for a license or its renewal, or made a material misstatement in connection with the application;
(3) been convicted of a felony or of an offense involving breach of trust, moral turpitude, fraud, or dishonest dealing within the past ten years.
(B) A person who was in business as a mortgage broker or is an agent of a broker before October 1, 1998, and who has been convicted of a felony or an offense involving breach of trust, moral turpitude, fraud, or dishonest dealing within the past ten years may continue in business as a mortgage broker or agent, but if a mortgage broker or an agent of a broker is convicted of an offense enumerated in item (3) of subsection (A) on or after October 1, 1998, that person is subject to the provisions of this chapter."
SECTION 13. Section 40-58-80 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 7 of 2004, is further amended to read:
"Section 40-58-80. (A) Upon the a finding that an action of a licensee may be in violation of this chapter, or of a law or regulation of this State or of the federal government or an agency of either, the department, after reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, shall order the licensee to cease and desist from the action may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court seeking an order to require the licensee to cease and desist from the action.
(B) If an administrative law judge issues an order requiring the licensee to cease and desist from the action and the licensee fails to appeal the cease and desist order of the department in accordance with Section 40-58-90 and continues to engage in the action in violation of the department's order, the licensee is subject to a penalty of not less than one thousand or more than two thousand five hundred dollars, in the discretion of the department, for each action the licensee takes in violation of the department's order. The penalty provision of this section is in addition to and not instead of other provisions of law applicable to a licensee for the mortgage loan broker's failure to comply with an order of the department.
(C) The department administrative law judge, upon the a finding that a licensee has engaged intentionally or repeatedly in a course of conduct in violation of this chapter, may revoke the license temporarily or permanently in its discretion after reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard and may increase the mortgage broker's required bond up to a maximum of twenty-five thousand dollars to ensure that the public is protected adequately. The department administrative law judge also may impose upon persons violating the provisions of this chapter administrative fines of not more than five hundred dollars for each offense or not more than five thousand dollars for the same set of transactions or occurrences. Each violation constitutes a separate offense. The department, if If it determines is determined that the required bond must be increased, the administrative law judge shall state in writing the reasons for the increase and immediately serve it upon the mortgage broker and the department. The mortgage broker shall provide the new bond within thirty days or the department shall revoke the license of the mortgage broker.
(D) A person who violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(E) Nothing in this chapter limits a statutory or common law right of a person to bring an action in a court for an act or the right of the State to punish a person for a violation of a law.
(F) The administrator of the department may suspend the right of an individual to engage in mortgage broker activity after finding that an originator or other employee of a licensed mortgage broker has failed to comply with a provision of this chapter. After an action by the administrator pursuant to this section, the originator or other employee of a licensed mortgage broker may request a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Court."
SECTION 14. Section 40-58-90 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by act 7 of 2004, is further amended to read:
"Section 40-58-90. An aggrieved party, within thirty days after the final decision of the department and by written notice to the department, may appeal to the circuit court of the county where the appellant resides as provided by Article 3, Chapter 23 of Title 1, the Administrative Procedures Act All appeals are to be made pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act and the rules governing practice before the Administrative Law Court."
SECTION 15. Section 40-68-160 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 40-68-160. (A) For the purposes of this section, 'conviction' includes a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or a finding of guilt.
Disciplinary action may be taken against a licensee by the department, as provided in subsection (B), on any of the following grounds:
(1) the conviction of a licensee or a controlling person of a licensee of bribery, fraud, or intentional or material misrepresentation in obtaining, attempting to obtain, or renewing a license;
(2) the conviction of a licensee or a controlling person of a licensee of a crime that relates to the operation of a staff leasing service or the ability of the licensee or a controlling person of a licensee to operate a staff leasing service;
(3) the conviction of a licensee or a controlling person of a licensee of a crime that relates to the classification, misclassification, or under-reporting of employees under the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act;
(4) the conviction of a licensee or a controlling person of a licensee of a crime that relates to the establishment or maintenance of a self-insurance program, whether health insurance, workers' compensation insurance, or other insurance;
(5) the conviction of a licensee or a controlling person of a licensee of a crime that relates to fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the operation of a staff leasing service;
(6) engaging in staff leasing services without a license;
(7) transferring or attempting to transfer a license issued under pursuant to this chapter;
(8) violating this chapter or any order or regulation issued by the department under pursuant to this chapter;
(9) failing to notify the department, in writing, of the felony conviction of a controlling person not later than the thirtieth day after the date on which that conviction is entered;
(10) failing to cooperate with an investigation, examination, or audit of the licensee's records conducted by the licensee's insurance company or its designee, as provided by the insurance contract or as authorized by law by the South Carolina Department of Insurance;
(11) failing to notify the department and the South Carolina Department of Insurance not later than the thirtieth day after the effective date of a change in ownership, principal business address, or the address of accounts and records;
(12) failing to correct a tax filing or payment deficiencies within a reasonable time as determined by the department;
(13) refusing, after reasonable notice, to meet reasonable health and safety requirements within the licensee's control and made known to the licensee by a federal or state agency;
(14) failing to correct a delinquency in the payment of the licensee's insurance premiums within a reasonable time;
(15) failing to correct a delinquency in the payment of an employee benefit plan premiums or contributions within a reasonable time; or
(16) knowingly making a material misrepresentation to an insurance company, to the department, or other governmental agency.
(B) Upon finding that a licensee has violated one or more provisions of this section, the department may:
(1) deny an application for a license;
(2) revoke, restrict, or refuse to renew a license;
(3) may impose an administrative penalty in an amount not less than one thousand dollars for each violation, but not more than fifty thousand dollars;
(4) issue a reprimand; or
(5) place the licensee on probation for the period and subject to conditions that the department specifies.
(C) On revocation of a license, the licensee immediately shall return the revoked license to the department.
(D) Disciplinary action, a denial of an application for a new or renewal license or a revocation of a license, or a determination that a controlling person is unqualified may occur subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, with notice to, and an opportunity for a hearing by, the affected applicant, licensee, or controlling person. All hearings pursuant to this section are before the Administrative Law Court.
(E) If a license is revoked or renewal is denied, the affected licensee may request a reinstatement hearing after a minimum of one year. The department may reinstate or renew the license only if the cause of the nonrenewal or revocation has been corrected."
SECTION 16. Section 44-79-80(8) and (9) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(8) The administrator may order the center to cease and desist, or may revoke, suspend, or refuse to continue the certificate of authority of a center, whenever , after a hearing and for causes shown, he determines that the center has violated or failed to comply with any provisions of this chapter or regulations promulgated under the authority of this chapter, or if after notice and opportunity for a hearing, it is shown that: file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court to obtain a cease and desist order or an order revoking, suspending, or vacating the certificate of authority of a center, if the department determines that the center has violated or failed to comply with any provision of this chapter or regulation promulgated under the authority of this chapter or if the department shows that:
(a) any a document or declaration required by subsection (4), items (a) through (g) were false or misleading; or
(b) by clear and convincing evidence the center or its agents, officers, or employees have engaged in false, fraudulent, or deceptive conduct in its dealings with customers;.
(9) In lieu Instead of revocation, suspension, or refusal to continue a certificate of authority of a center, the administrator in his discretion administrative law judge may assess an administrative penalty for a violation of subsection (4) or (8) of this section not to exceed five hundred dollars for each violation, not to exceed five thousand dollars for matters commenced in any calendar year. These penalties may be assessed in connection with orders to cease and desist."
SECTION 17. Section 56-28-110 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 56-28-110. Every Each subsequent purchaser must be notified by the seller of the fact that the vehicle was required to be repurchased under pursuant to the terms of this chapter or another provision of law relating to motor vehicle warranties. Failure to notify properly any purchaser of the requirements of this section subjects the seller to an administrative penalty to be imposed by the administrator up to a maximum of five hundred dollars for each vehicle. If a seller fails properly to notify a purchaser of the requirements of this section, the department may impose an administrative penalty up to a maximum of five hundred dollars for each vehicle. A seller aggrieved by the action of the department may seek review by filing a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court."
SECTION 18. Section 59-102-70 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 300 of 2004, is amended to read:
"Section 59-102-70. (A) The Department of Consumer Affairs may suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a registration for conduct that would have justified denial of registration pursuant to Section 59-102-60(B).
(B) The Department of Consumer Affairs may deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a certificate of registration or licensure only after proper notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The Administrative Procedures Act applies to this chapter A person aggrieved by an action taken by the department pursuant to this subsection or pursuant to Section 59-102-60(B) may request review by filing a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court.
(C) The Department of Consumer Affairs may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court for an order revoking or suspending the registration of an athlete agent for cause or for a violation of a provision of this chapter."
SECTION 19. Section 59-102-170 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 300 of 2004, is amended to read:
"Section 59-102-170. Upon a finding that an athlete agent has violated a provision of this chapter, as determined from admissions of the athlete agent freely and voluntarily made or as the result of a contested case hearing, conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, the Department of Consumer Affairs the Administrative Law Judge may assess a fine against an athlete agent not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars for a violation of this chapter."
SECTION 20. Section 37-11-100 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 37-11-100. The department, upon proper notice and hearing in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act and department regulations, may deny, suspend, or revoke licenses issued under this chapter or assess a monetary penalty for violations of provisions under this chapter or the regulations promulgated under this chapter may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court to suspend or revoke a license issued pursuant to this chapter or assess a monetary penalty for violation of a provision of this chapter or a regulation promulgated pursuant to this chapter."
SECTION 21. Section 37-6-402(1) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(1) 'Contested case' means a proceeding, including, but not restricted to, a proceeding initiated one pursuant to the provisions on administrative enforcement orders (Section 37-6-108(1)) as provided in Section 37-6-108(A) and licensing matters in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for hearing."
SECTION 22. Section 1-23-660 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 1-23-660. Any contested case docketed for hearing before a board or commission abolished by this act shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of such board or commission until the case reaches final disposition at a hearing, with any ruling or adjudication of the board or commission binding. The rules of procedure and review for such boards or commissions in effect on the date of filing of the pending action shall remain in effect until the final disposition of the pending action, other provisions of this chapter notwithstanding. Where a contested case pending before a board or commission abolished by this act is continued under the jurisdiction of such board or commission as provided in this section and where that board or commission is abolished as provided by this act, that board or commission notwithstanding such provision abolishing it shall nevertheless continue in existence for the sole purpose of conducting and bringing to final disposition all such cases. Where any member of that board or commission has assumed another office after the abolition of that board or commission, he shall be considered an ex officio member of his former board or commission for the purposes of this paragraph. Any member of a board or commission abolished who continues to serve in the manner and for the purposes provided by this paragraph is entitled to receive only that mileage, per diem, and subsistence paid to members of state boards, commissions, and committees.
(A) There is created within the Administrative Law Court the Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings. The Chief Judge of the Administrative Law Court shall serve as the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings. The duties, functions, and responsibilities of all hearing officers of the Department of Motor Vehicles are devolved upon the Administrative Law Court effective January 1, 2006. Hearing officers of the Department of Motor Vehicles and their direct support staff, as determined by the Chief Judge of the Administrative Law Court and according to his sole discretion, together with the appropriations relating to all hearing officers of the Department of Motor Vehicles and their direct support staff, are transferred to the Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings of the Administrative Law Court on January 1, 2006. These hearing officers and their support staff must be appointed, hired, contracted, and supervised by the Chief Judge of the court, shall continue to exercise their present Department of Motor Vehicle functions, duties, and responsibilities under the auspices of the Administrative Law Court as directed by the Chief Judge, and shall perform the other functions and duties the Chief Judge of the court prescribes. All employees of the division serve at the will of the Chief Judge. The Chief Judge is solely responsible for the administration of the division, the assignment of cases, and the administrative duties and responsibilities of the hearing officers and their support staff.
(B) The Budget and Control Board shall assist with all actions necessary to accomplish this transfer, in consultation with the agency heads of the transferring and receiving agencies.
(C) Notwithstanding another provision of law, the hearing officers shall conduct hearings in accordance with Chapter 23 of Title 1, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the rules of procedure for the Administrative Law Court, at suitable locations as determined by the Chief Judge. The Department of Motor Vehicles shall continue to provide locations within their facilities for the hearings as prescribed by the Chief Judge. The hearing officers are bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct, as contained in Rule 501 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules. Appeals from decisions of the hearing officers must be taken to the Administrative Law Court pursuant to the court's appellate rules of procedure. The Chief Judge may not hear appeals from these decisions."
SECTION 23. Section 56-5-2952 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 61 of 2003, is further amended to read:
"Section 56-5-2952. The filing fee to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 56-5-2951 or 56-1-286 for a person whose driver's license has been suspended for either his refusal to submit to a breath test or registering an alcohol concentration greater than the existing lawful limit, or any other an administrative hearing before the Department of Motor Vehicles Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings of the Administrative Law Court, is one hundred fifty dollars, or as otherwise prescribed by the rules of procedure for the Administrative Law Court. Funds generated from the collection of this fee must be used retained by the Office of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Motor Vehicles Administrative Law Court to defray the costs of scheduling and conducting administrative hearings."
SECTION 24. Sections 37-6-415 and 37-11-110 of the 1976 Code are repealed.
SECTION 25. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.
SECTION 26. 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 27. This act takes effect on July 1, 2005, and applies to all licensing and administrative hearings involving the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. HARRISON explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
The Judiciary Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\10909MM05), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/ SECTION 1. Section 16-17-445(F) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(F) The department shall investigate any complaints received concerning violations of this section. If the department finds has reason to believe that there has been a violation of this section, it may request a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Court to impose a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars for a first violation, two hundred dollars for a second violation, and one thousand dollars for a third or subsequent violation, and . The department may seek also bring a civil action in the Court of Common Pleas seeking other relief, including injunctive relief, as the court considers appropriate against the telephone solicitor. In addition, a person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction for a first or second offense, must be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days, and for a third or subsequent offense must be fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days. Each violation constitutes a separate offense for purposes of the civil and criminal penalties in this section."
SECTION 2. Section 34-36-40 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 452 of 1992, is amended to read:
"Section 34-36-40. (A) The department may investigate the actions of any person for compliance with this chapter.
(B) The department may request a hearing before the Administrative Law Court for an order requiring a loan broker to cease and desist whenever the department determines if it is determined that the loan broker has violated, is violating, or will violate any a provision of this chapter, any a regulation promulgated by the department, or any a written agreement entered into with the department.
(C) The department may request a hearing before the Administrative Law Court for an order requiring a loan broker to refund or reimburse any advance fee or any other fee taken in violation of Section 34-36-20 or taken as a result of a false, misleading, or deceptive representation as described in Section 34-36-20. Such an order may, but need not, be sought by the department in conjunction with a cease and desist order pursuant to subsection (B).
(D) The department may request a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Court impose and collect seeking the imposition of a civil administrative fine on behalf of the department against any person found to have violated any provision of this chapter, any regulation promulgated by the department, or any written agreement entered into with the department, in any amount not to exceed five thousand dollars for each violation."
SECTION 3. Section 37-6-106(3) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(3) Upon failure without lawful excuse to obey a subpoena or to give testimony and upon reasonable notice to all persons affected thereby, the Administrator administrator may apply to the court of common pleas Administrative Law Court for an order compelling compliance."
SECTION 4. Section 37-6-108 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 82 of 2001, is further amended to read:
"Section 37-6-108. (1)(A) After notice, and hearing the administrator may order a creditor, a person acting in on his behalf, or a person subject to this title to cease and desist from engaging in violations of this title. A respondent aggrieved by an order of the administrator may obtain judicial review of the order and the request a contested case before the Administrative Law Court in accordance with the Administrative Law Court's rules of procedure. The administrator may obtain a decree an order of the court for enforcement of its order in the court of common pleas from the Administrative Law Court for enforcement of his orders as provided in the Administrative Procedures Act and the Administrative Law Court's rules of procedure. The proceeding for review or enforcement is must be initiated by filing a petition in the court. with the Administrative Law Court in accordance with the Administrative Law Court's rules of procedure, and Copies copies of the petition request for a contested case hearing must be served upon all parties of record.
(2) Within thirty days after service of the petition for review upon the Administrator, or within any further time the court may allow, the Administrator shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the entire record upon which the order is based, including any transcript of testimony, which need not be printed. By stipulation of all parties to the review proceeding, the record may be shortened. After hearing, the court may (a) reverse or modify the order if the findings of fact of the Administrator are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record, (b) grant any temporary relief or restraining order it deems just, and (c) enter an order enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the order of the Administrator, or remanding the case to the Administrator for further proceedings.
(3) An objection not urged at the hearing shall not be considered by the court unless the failure to urge the objection is excused for good cause shown. A party may move the court to remand the case to the Administrator in the interest of justice for the purpose of adducing additional specified and material evidence and seeking findings thereon upon good cause shown for the failure to adduce this evidence before the Administrator.
(4)(B) The jurisdiction of the court Administrative Law Court shall be is exclusive, and its final judgment or decree order may be appealed in the manner provided by the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules. The administrator's copy of the testimony shall be available at reasonable times to all parties for examination without cost as provided in Sections 1-23-610 and 1-23-380.
(5)(C) A proceeding for review under request for a contested case hearing pursuant to this section must be initiated within thirty days after a copy of the order of the Administrator administrator is received. If no proceeding a request is so not initiated, the Administrator administrator may obtain a decree of the court of common pleas move for an order from the Administrative Law Court for enforcement of its his order upon a showing that the order was issued in compliance with this section, that no proceeding for review a request for a contested case hearing was not initiated within thirty days after a copy of the order was received, and that the respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of the court Administrative Law Court.
(6)(D) For purposes of this section and Sections 37-6-117 and 37-6-118, a violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act which arises arising out of the production, promotion, or sale of consumer goods, services, or interests in land is deemed to be considered a violation of this title subject to action by the administrator before the Administrative Law Court.
(7)(E) Unless otherwise specifically provided by law, the following administrative penalties, in the discretion of the administrator, may be levied against persons found to have engaged in violations of this title pursuant to subsection (1) (A) of this section:
(a)(1) If the violator is found to have violated repeatedly and intentionally any provision of this title, the violator must be fined in an amount not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars and not to exceed ten thousand dollars for any transaction or occurrence or set of transactions or occurrences which violated multiple provisions of this title.
(b)(2) If the violator is shown to have violated any a previous lawful order of the administrator or court tribunal of competent jurisdiction, the violator, in the discretion of the administrator, may be fined in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars for each violation.
(c)(3) The penalties in items (a) (1) and (b) (2) of this subsection are in addition to any other penalties provided by law or any other remedies provided by law.
(8)(F) The administrator administrative law judge may make findings and issue and enforce cease and desist orders regarding unconscionable conduct or unconscionable debt collection pursuant to this section, but he the administrative law judge may not award damage, treble damage, or attorney's fee remedies to affected customers in these hearings."
SECTION 5. Section 37-6-113 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 82 of 2001, is further amended to read:
"Section 37-6-113. (1)(A) After demand, the administrator may bring a civil action against a creditor or a person subject to this title to recover actual damages sustained and excess charges paid by one or more consumers who have a right to recover explicitly granted by this title. In a civil action under pursuant to this subsection, penalties may must not be recovered by the administrator. The court shall order amounts recovered under pursuant to this subsection to be paid to each consumer or set off against his obligation. A consumer's action, except a class action, takes precedence over a prior or subsequent action by the administrator with respect to the claim of that consumer. A consumer's class action takes precedence over a subsequent action by the administrator with respect to claims common to both actions, but the administrator may intervene. An administrator's action on behalf of a class of consumers takes precedence over a consumer's subsequent class action with respect to claims common to both actions. Whenever an action takes precedence over another action under pursuant to this subsection, the latter action may be stayed to the extent appropriate while the precedent action is pending and dismissed if the precedent action is dismissed with prejudice or results in a final judgment granting or denying the claim asserted in the precedent action. A defense available to a creditor in a civil action brought by a consumer is available to him in a civil action brought under pursuant to this subsection.
(2)(B) The administrator may bring a civil action against a creditor, a person acting in his behalf, or a person subject to this title to recover a civil penalty of no more than five thousand dollars for repeatedly and intentionally violating this title. A civil penalty pursuant to this subsection may must not be imposed for a violation of this title occurring more than two years before the action is brought.
(3)(C) The Administrator administrator may bring a civil action or an administrative action, as provided in Section 37-6-108, against a creditor for failure to file notification in accordance with the provisions on notification (Section 37-6-202) pursuant to Section 37-6-202 or to pay fees in accordance with the provisions on fees (Section 37-6-203) pursuant to Section 37-6-203 to recover the fees the defendant has failed to pay and a civil penalty in an amount determined by the court not exceeding the greater of three times the amount of fees the defendant has failed to pay or $1,000 one thousand dollars."
SECTION 6. Section 37-6-401 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 37-6-401. This part applies to the Administrator administrator, prescribes the procedures to be observed by him in exercising his powers under this title, and supplements the provisions of the Part on Powers and Functions of Administrator (Part 1) of this chapter and of the Part on Supervised Loans (Part 5) of the Chapter on Loans (Chapter 3). A conflict between the provisions of this part and the Administrative Procedures Act pursuant to Chapter 23, Title 1 or the rules governing practice before the Administrative Law Court must be resolved in favor of the Administrative Procedures Act and the rules governing practice before the Administrative Law Court."
SECTION 7. Section 37-6-414 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 37-6-414. (1)(A) A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available before the Administrator administrator and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case the administrator's determination is entitled to judicial review under this part. a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Court as provided in Section 1-23-600(D) and judicial review as provided in Sections 1-23-380(B) and 1-23-610. This section does not limit utilization of or the scope of judicial review available under other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo provided by law. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate action or ruling of the Administrator administrative law court is immediately reviewable immediately if review of the final decision of the Administrator Administrative Law Court would not provide an adequate remedy.
(2)(B) Proceedings for review Contested case proceedings are instituted by filing a petition in the court of common pleas within thirty days after mailing by certified mail notice of the final decision of the Administrator or, if a rehearing is requested, within thirty days after the decision thereon request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court according to the rules of procedure of the Administrative Law Court. Copies of the petition request for a contested case hearing shall must be served upon the Administrator administrator and all parties of record. The final decision of the administrative law judge may be appealed as provided for in Sections 1-23-380 and 1-23-610.
(3) The filing of the petition does not itself stay enforcement of the decision of the Administrator. The Administrator may grant, or the reviewing court may order, a stay upon appropriate terms.
(4) Within thirty days after the service of the petition, or within further time allowed by the court, the Administrator shall transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review. By stipulation of all parties to the review proceedings, the record may be shortened. A party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be taxed by the court for the additional costs. The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record.
(5) If, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding before the Administrator, the court may order that the additional evidence be taken before the Administrator upon conditions determined by the court. The Administrator may modify his findings and decision by reason of the additional evidence and shall file that evidence and any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court.
(6) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the Administrator, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral arguments and receive written briefs.
(7) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Administrator as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the Administrator or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(b) In excess of the statutory authority of the Administrator;
(c) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(d) Affected by other error of law;
(e) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(f) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."
SECTION 8. Section 37-16-70 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 37-16-70. (A) A prepaid legal services company violating this chapter is subject to any combination of the following: The department may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court if a prepaid legal services company violates a provision of this chapter and the prepaid legal services company is subject to any combination of the following:
(1) an administrative order to cease and desist from committing violations of this chapter;
(2) administrative fines up to five thousand dollars; and
(3) revocation or denial of registration.
(B) Upon satisfactory evidence that a prepaid legal services company representative has violated or failed to comply with a provision of this chapter or regulation promulgated pursuant to the authority of this chapter, the administrator may issue an order requiring the company representative to cease and desist from engaging in the violation or revoke or suspend the company representative's authority. A prepaid legal services company representative may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court if it believes it is aggrieved by the decision of the administrator."
SECTION 9. Section 39-61-100 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 142 of 1991, is further amended to read:
"Section 39-61-100. (1) (A) The administrator may order the club to cease and desist, or may revoke, suspend, or refuse to continue the certificate of authority of a club, whenever, after a hearing and for cause shown, he determines that the club: The department may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court for an order requiring the club to cease and desist or an order revoking, suspending, or vacating the certificate of authority of a club, if the Administrative Law Court finds, after a hearing, that the club:
(a)(1) has violated or failed to comply with any provisions of this chapter or regulations promulgated under pursuant to the authority of this chapter;
(b)(2) has obtained a certificate of authority through wilful misrepresentation or fraud;
(c)(3) has engaged in fraudulent or deceptive practices;
(d)(4) has wilfully, orally or in writing, misrepresented the terms, benefits, privileges, and provisions of any service contract issued or to be issued by it or any other club;
(e)(5) is unable to meet its obligations as determined by generally accepted accounting principles;
(f)(6) has, after notice to the club of an alleged occurrence of any of items (a) (1) through (e) (5) of this section, refused without just cause to submit relevant information to the administrator with respect to the motor club services within this State.
(2) (B) In lieu Instead of revocation, suspension, or refusal to continue a certificate of authority for a violation or violations of items (a) (1) through (f) (2) of subsection (1) (A) of this section, the administrator in his discretion administrative law judge may assess an administrative penalty of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars for each violation. No An accumulation of these penalties may not exceed five thousand dollars for matters commenced in any calendar year. These penalties may be assessed in connection with orders to cease and desist."
SECTION 10. Section 39-61-130 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 155 of 1987, is further amended to read:
"Section 39-61-130. Upon satisfactory evidence that a club representative has violated or failed to comply with any a provision of this chapter or regulation promulgated under pursuant to the authority of this chapter, the Administrator administrator may issue an order requiring the club representative to cease and desist from engaging in the violation or may revoke or suspend the club representative's authority. A club representative aggrieved by an action of the administrator taken pursuant to this provision may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court."
SECTION 11. Section 40-39-150 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 40-39-150. (A) Upon the finding that an action of a pawnbroker is in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or of a law or regulation of this State or of the federal government or an agency of the state or federal government, the administrator, after reasonable notice to the pawnbroker and an opportunity for the pawnbroker to be heard, shall order the pawnbroker to cease and desist from the action may file a request with the Administrative Law Court for a contested case hearing in which the administrator may seek an order requiring the pawnbroker to cease and desist from the action.
(B) The Administrator of the Department of Consumer Affairs administrative law judge also may impose also administrative fines of up to seven hundred fifty dollars for each offense upon persons violating any of the provisions of this chapter up to a maximum of fifteen thousand dollars for the same set of transactions or occurrences. Each violation constitutes a separate offense. In addition, any a person violating the provisions of Sections 40-39-20 and 40-39-30 is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty days, or both. The administrator administrative law judge may revoke or suspend a pawnbroker's certificate of authority in addition to the penalties enumerated provided in this section."
SECTION 12. Section 40-58-55 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 7 of 2004, is further amended to read:
"Section 40-58-55. (A) The department may refuse to license an applicant or refuse to renew a license if it finds, after notice and a hearing pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, that the applicant or his agent has Upon request for a contested case hearing by a person whose application for a license or renewal of a license has been denied, the Administrative Law Court may review the determination by the department that the applicant or his agent has:
(1) violated a provision of this chapter or an order of the department;
(2) withheld material information in connection with an application for a license or its renewal, or made a material misstatement in connection with the application;
(3) been convicted of a felony or of an offense involving breach of trust, moral turpitude, fraud, or dishonest dealing within the past ten years.
(B) A person who was in business as a mortgage broker or is an agent of a broker before October 1, 1998, and who has been convicted of a felony or an offense involving breach of trust, moral turpitude, fraud, or dishonest dealing within the past ten years may continue in business as a mortgage broker or agent, but if a mortgage broker or an agent of a broker is convicted of an offense enumerated in item (3) of subsection (A) on or after October 1, 1998, that person is subject to the provisions of this chapter."
SECTION 13. Section 40-58-80 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 7 of 2004, is further amended to read:
"Section 40-58-80. (A) Upon the a finding that an action of a licensee may be in violation of this chapter, or of a law or regulation of this State or of the federal government or an agency of either, the department, after reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, shall order the licensee to cease and desist from the action may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court seeking an order to require the licensee to cease and desist from the action.
(B) If an administrative law judge issues an order requiring the licensee to cease and desist from the action and the licensee fails to appeal the cease and desist order of the department in accordance with Section 40-58-90 and continues to engage in the action in violation of the department's order, the licensee is subject to a penalty of not less than one thousand or more than two thousand five hundred dollars, in the discretion of the department, for each action the licensee takes in violation of the department's order. The penalty provision of this section is in addition to and not instead of other provisions of law applicable to a licensee for the mortgage loan broker's failure to comply with an order of the department.
(C) The department administrative law judge, upon the a finding that a licensee has engaged intentionally or repeatedly in a course of conduct in violation of this chapter, may revoke the license temporarily or permanently in its discretion after reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard and may increase the mortgage broker's required bond up to a maximum of twenty-five thousand dollars to ensure that the public is protected adequately. The department administrative law judge also may impose upon persons violating the provisions of this chapter administrative fines of not more than five hundred dollars for each offense or not more than five thousand dollars for the same set of transactions or occurrences. Each violation constitutes a separate offense. The department, if If it determines is determined that the required bond must be increased, the administrative law judge shall state in writing the reasons for the increase and immediately serve it upon the mortgage broker and the department. The mortgage broker shall provide the new bond within thirty days or the department shall revoke the license of the mortgage broker.
(D) A person who violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(E) Nothing in this chapter limits a statutory or common law right of a person to bring an action in a court for an act or the right of the State to punish a person for a violation of a law.
(F) The administrator of the department may suspend the right of an individual to engage in mortgage broker activity after finding that an originator or other employee of a licensed mortgage broker has failed to comply with a provision of this chapter. After an action by the administrator pursuant to this section, the originator or other employee of a licensed mortgage broker may request a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Court."
SECTION 14. Section 40-58-90 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 7 of 2004, is further amended to read:
"Section 40-58-90. An aggrieved party, within thirty days after the final decision of the department and by written notice to the department, may appeal to the circuit court of the county where the appellant resides as provided by Article 3, Chapter 23 of Title 1, the Administrative Procedures Act All appeals are to be made pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act and the rules governing practice before the Administrative Law Court."
SECTION 15. Section 40-68-160 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 40-68-160. (A) For the purposes of this section, 'conviction' includes a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or a finding of guilt.
Disciplinary action may be taken against a licensee by the department, as provided in subsection (B), on any of the following grounds:
(1) the conviction of a licensee or a controlling person of a licensee of bribery, fraud, or intentional or material misrepresentation in obtaining, attempting to obtain, or renewing a license;
(2) the conviction of a licensee or a controlling person of a licensee of a crime that relates to the operation of a staff leasing service or the ability of the licensee or a controlling person of a licensee to operate a staff leasing service;
(3) the conviction of a licensee or a controlling person of a licensee of a crime that relates to the classification, misclassification, or under-reporting of employees under the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act;
(4) the conviction of a licensee or a controlling person of a licensee of a crime that relates to the establishment or maintenance of a self-insurance program, whether health insurance, workers' compensation insurance, or other insurance;
(5) the conviction of a licensee or a controlling person of a licensee of a crime that relates to fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the operation of a staff leasing service;
(6) engaging in staff leasing services without a license;
(7) transferring or attempting to transfer a license issued under pursuant to this chapter;
(8) violating this chapter or any order or regulation issued by the department under pursuant to this chapter;
(9) failing to notify the department, in writing, of the felony conviction of a controlling person not later than the thirtieth day after the date on which that conviction is entered;
(10) failing to cooperate with an investigation, examination, or audit of the licensee's records conducted by the licensee's insurance company or its designee, as provided by the insurance contract or as authorized by law by the South Carolina Department of Insurance;
(11) failing to notify the department and the South Carolina Department of Insurance not later than the thirtieth day after the effective date of a change in ownership, principal business address, or the address of accounts and records;
(12) failing to correct a tax filing or payment deficiencies within a reasonable time as determined by the department;
(13) refusing, after reasonable notice, to meet reasonable health and safety requirements within the licensee's control and made known to the licensee by a federal or state agency;
(14) failing to correct a delinquency in the payment of the licensee's insurance premiums within a reasonable time;
(15) failing to correct a delinquency in the payment of an employee benefit plan premiums or contributions within a reasonable time; or
(16) knowingly making a material misrepresentation to an insurance company, to the department, or other governmental agency.
(B) Upon finding that a licensee has violated one or more provisions of this section, the department may:
(1) deny an application for a license;
(2) revoke, restrict, or refuse to renew a license;
(3) may impose an administrative penalty in an amount not less than one thousand dollars for each violation, but not more than fifty thousand dollars;
(4) issue a reprimand; or
(5) place the licensee on probation for the period and subject to conditions that the department specifies.
(C) On revocation of a license, the licensee immediately shall return the revoked license to the department.
(D) Disciplinary action, a denial of an application for a new or renewal license or a revocation of a license, or a determination that a controlling person is unqualified may occur subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, with notice to, and an opportunity for a hearing by, the affected applicant, licensee, or controlling person. All hearings pursuant to this section are before the Administrative Law Court.
(E) If a license is revoked or renewal is denied, the affected licensee may request a reinstatement hearing after a minimum of one year. The department may reinstate or renew the license only if the cause of the nonrenewal or revocation has been corrected."
SECTION 16. Section 44-79-80(8) and (9) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(8) The administrator may order the center to cease and desist, or may revoke, suspend, or refuse to continue the certificate of authority of a center, whenever , after a hearing and for causes shown, he determines that the center has violated or failed to comply with any provisions of this chapter or regulations promulgated under the authority of this chapter, or if after notice and opportunity for a hearing, it is shown that: file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court to obtain a cease and desist order or an order revoking, suspending, or vacating the certificate of authority of a center, if the department determines that the center has violated or failed to comply with any provision of this chapter or regulation promulgated under the authority of this chapter or if the department shows that:
(a) any a document or declaration required by subsection (4), items (a) through (g) were false or misleading; or
(b) by clear and convincing evidence the center or its agents, officers, or employees have engaged in false, fraudulent, or deceptive conduct in its dealings with customers;.
(9) In lieu Instead of revocation, suspension, or refusal to continue a certificate of authority of a center, the administrator in his discretion administrative law judge may assess an administrative penalty for a violation of subsection (4) or (8) of this section not to exceed five hundred dollars for each violation, not to exceed five thousand dollars for matters commenced in any calendar year. These penalties may be assessed in connection with orders to cease and desist."
SECTION 17. Section 56-28-110 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 56-28-110. Every Each subsequent purchaser must be notified by the seller of the fact that the vehicle was required to be repurchased under pursuant to the terms of this chapter or another provision of law relating to motor vehicle warranties. Failure to notify properly any purchaser of the requirements of this section subjects the seller to an administrative penalty to be imposed by the administrator up to a maximum of five hundred dollars for each vehicle. If a seller fails properly to notify a purchaser of the requirements of this section, the department may impose an administrative penalty up to a maximum of five hundred dollars for each vehicle. A seller aggrieved by the action of the department may seek review by filing a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court."
SECTION 18. Section 59-102-70 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 300 of 2004, is amended to read:
"Section 59-102-70. (A) The Department of Consumer Affairs may suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a registration for conduct that would have justified denial of registration pursuant to Section 59-102-60(B).
(B) The Department of Consumer Affairs may deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a certificate of registration or licensure only after proper notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The Administrative Procedures Act applies to this chapter A person aggrieved by an action taken by the department pursuant to this subsection or pursuant to Section 59-102-60(B) may request review by filing a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court.
(C) The Department of Consumer Affairs may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court for an order revoking or suspending the registration of an athlete agent for cause or for a violation of a provision of this chapter."
SECTION 19. Section 59-102-170 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 300 of 2004, is amended to read:
"Section 59-102-170. Upon a finding that an athlete agent has violated a provision of this chapter, as determined from admissions of the athlete agent freely and voluntarily made or as the result of a contested case hearing, conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, the Department of Consumer Affairs the Administrative Law Judge may assess a fine against an athlete agent not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars for a violation of this chapter."
SECTION 20. Section 37-11-100 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 37-11-100. The department, upon proper notice and hearing in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act and department regulations, may deny, suspend, or revoke licenses issued under this chapter or assess a monetary penalty for violations of provisions under this chapter or the regulations promulgated under this chapter may file a request for a contested case hearing with the Administrative Law Court to suspend or revoke a license issued pursuant to this chapter or assess a monetary penalty for violation of a provision of this chapter or a regulation promulgated pursuant to this chapter."
SECTION 21. Section 37-6-402(1) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(1) 'Contested case' means a proceeding, including, but not restricted to, a proceeding initiated one pursuant to the provisions on administrative enforcement orders (Section 37-6-108(1)) as provided in Section 37-6-108(A) and licensing matters in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for hearing."
SECTION 22. Section 1-23-660 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 1-23-660. Any contested case docketed for hearing before a board or commission abolished by this act shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of such board or commission until the case reaches final disposition at a hearing, with any ruling or adjudication of the board or commission binding. The rules of procedure and review for such boards or commissions in effect on the date of filing of the pending action shall remain in effect until the final disposition of the pending action, other provisions of this chapter notwithstanding. Where a contested case pending before a board or commission abolished by this act is continued under the jurisdiction of such board or commission as provided in this section and where that board or commission is abolished as provided by this act, that board or commission notwithstanding such provision abolishing it shall nevertheless continue in existence for the sole purpose of conducting and bringing to final disposition all such cases. Where any member of that board or commission has assumed another office after the abolition of that board or commission, he shall be considered an ex officio member of his former board or commission for the purposes of this paragraph. Any member of a board or commission abolished who continues to serve in the manner and for the purposes provided by this paragraph is entitled to receive only that mileage, per diem, and subsistence paid to members of state boards, commissions, and committees.
(A) There is created within the Administrative Law Court the Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings. The Chief Judge of the Administrative Law Court shall serve as the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings. The duties, functions, and responsibilities of all hearing officers of the Department of Motor Vehicles are devolved upon the Administrative Law Court effective January 1, 2006. Hearing officers of the Department of Motor Vehicles and their direct support staff, as determined by the Chief Judge of the Administrative Law Court and according to his sole discretion, together with the appropriations relating to all hearing officers of the Department of Motor Vehicles and their direct support staff, are transferred to the Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings of the Administrative Law Court on January 1, 2006. These hearing officers and their support staff must be appointed, hired, contracted, and supervised by the Chief Judge of the court, shall continue to exercise their present Department of Motor Vehicles functions, duties, and responsibilities under the auspices of the Administrative Law Court as directed by the Chief Judge, and shall perform the other functions and duties the Chief Judge of the court prescribes. All employees of the division serve at the will of the Chief Judge. The Chief Judge is solely responsible for the administration of the division, the assignment of cases, and the administrative duties and responsibilities of the hearing officers and their support staff.
(B) The Budget and Control Board shall assist with all actions necessary to accomplish this transfer, in consultation with the agency heads of the transferring and receiving agencies.
(C) Notwithstanding another provision of law, the hearing officers shall conduct hearings in accordance with Chapter 23 of Title 1, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the rules of procedure for the Administrative Law Court, at suitable locations as determined by the Chief Judge. The Department of Motor Vehicles shall continue to provide locations within their facilities for the hearings as prescribed by the Chief Judge. The hearing officers are bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct, as contained in Rule 501 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules. Appeals from decisions of the hearing officers must be taken to the Administrative Law Court pursuant to the court's appellate rules of procedure. The Chief Judge may not hear appeals from these decisions."
SECTION 23. Section 56-5-2952 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 61 of 2003, is further amended to read:
"Section 56-5-2952. The filing fee to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 56-5-2951 or 56-1-286 for a person whose driver's license has been suspended for either his refusal to submit to a breath test or registering an alcohol concentration greater than the existing lawful limit, or any other an administrative hearing before the Department of Motor Vehicles Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings of the Administrative Law Court, is one hundred fifty dollars, or as otherwise prescribed by the rules of procedure for the Administrative Law Court. Funds generated from the collection of this fee must be used retained by the Office of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Motor Vehicles Administrative Law Court to defray the costs of scheduling and conducting administrative hearings."
SECTION 24. Sections 37-6-415 and 37-11-110 of the 1976 Code are repealed.
SECTION 25. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.
SECTION 26. 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 27. This act takes effect on July 1, 2005, and applies to all licensing and administrative hearings involving the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. HARRISON moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
The following Bill was taken up:
H. 3591 (Word version) -- Reps. Brady, J. E. Smith, Harrison, Pinson, Agnew, Anthony, Ceips, Chalk, Cobb-Hunter, Frye, Haskins, Hayes, Hinson, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Lucas, McGee, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Taylor, Umphlett, Whitmire, Witherspoon, Young, Ballentine, Mahaffey, Thompson, Coates and Leach: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-270, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SCHEDULE V CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, SO AS TO INCLUDE IN SCHEDULE V ANY COMPOUND CONTAINING PSEUDOEPHEDRINE, TO REQUIRE SUCH COMPOUNDS TO BE DISPENSED ONLY BY A PHARMACIST, OR PHARMACY TECHNICIAN, TO REQUIRE A PICTURE IDENTIFICATION TO PURCHASE SUCH COMPOUNDS, TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH COMPOUND THAT CAN BE PURCHASED IN A THIRTY DAY PERIOD, AND TO PROVIDE THAT LIQUID OR CAPSULE FORMS OF COMPOUNDS WHERE PSEUDOEPHEDRINE IS NOT THE ONLY ACTIVE INGREDIENT ARE NOT SCHEDULE V CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO EXEMPT OTHER PRODUCTS BY REGULATION FROM SCHEDULE V IF THEY ARE NOT USED IN THE ILLEGAL MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETMINE.
The Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\NBD\11826AC05), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. Article 3, Chapter 53, Title 44 of the 1976 Code, is amended by adding:
"Section 44-53-398. (A) Products whose sole active ingredient is ephedrine or pseudoephedrine may be offered for retail sale only if sold in blister packaging. Such products may not be offered for retail sale by self-service, but only from behind a counter or other barrier so that such products are not directly accessible by the public but only by a retail store employee or agent.
(B) No person may deliver in any single over the counter sale more than three packages of any product containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as the sole active ingredient or in combination with other active ingredients or any number of packages that contain a combined total of more than nine grams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine.
(C) It is unlawful for a retail distributor to purchase any product containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine from any person or entity other than a manufacturer or a wholesale distributor registered by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
(D) Persons delivering or selling products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine pursuant to subsection (A) shall require the purchaser to produce a government issued photo identification showing the date of birth of the person and require the purchaser to sign a written or electronic log showing the date of the transaction, name of the person, the person's address, and the amount of the compound, mixture, or preparation. A retail distributor that delivers or sells products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine pursuant to subsection (A) must transmit this log every sixty days to the State Law Enforcement Division in a manner required by the division.
(E) Except as authorized by this section, it is unlawful for any person to possess, have under his or her control, manufacture, deliver, distribute, dispense, administer, purchase, sell, or possess with intent to distribute, any substance containing any amount of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or any of its salts, optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers which have been altered from their original condition so as to be powdered, liquefied, dissolved, solvated, or crushed. This subsection does not apply to any of the substances identified within this subsection which are possessed or altered for a legitimate medical purpose as directed by a person licensed under Title 40 and authorized to prescribe legend drugs.
(F) This section does not apply to:
(1) pediatric products labeled pursuant to federal regulation as primarily intended for administration to children under twelve years of age according to label instructions; and
(2) products that the Board of Pharmacy, upon application of a manufacturer, exempts because the product is formulated in such a way as to effectively prevent the conversion of the active ingredient into methamphetamine or its salts or precursors.
(G) This section preempts all local ordinances or regulations governing the retail sale of over the counter products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine by a retail business except such local ordinances or regulations that existed on or before December 31, 2004. Effective January 1, 2006 this section preempts all local ordinances.
(H)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for a person knowingly to violate any prohibition contained in subsection (A), (B), (C), (D) or (E).
(2) A person convicted of a violation of subsection (A) or (B) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction for a first offense must be fined not more than five hundred dollars, and, upon conviction for a second or subsequent offense must be imprisoned not more than six months or fined not more than one thousand dollars, or both. If a retail distributor is accused of a violation of subsection (B), proof that the retail distributor has engaged a methamphetamine awareness or education program in the store is prima facie evidence that the store has complied with the provisions of this section.
(3) A person convicted of a violation of subsection (C), upon conviction for a first offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more than one thousand dollars, or both. Upon conviction for a second or subsequent offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be imprisoned not more than three years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
(4) A person convicted of a violation of subsection (D) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction for a first offense must be fined not more than five hundred dollars. Upon conviction for a second or subsequent offense, a person must be imprisoned not more than six months or fined not more than one thousand dollars, or both. If a retail distributor is accused of a violation of subsection (D), proof that the retail distributor has engaged a methamphetamine awareness or education program in the store is prima facie evidence that the store has complied with the provisions of this section.
(5) A person convicted of a violation of subsection (E) is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction for a first offense must be imprisoned not more than five years and fined not more than five thousand dollars. The court, upon approval from the solicitor, may request as part of the sentence, that the offender enter and successfully complete a drug treatment program. For a second or subsequent offense, the offender is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than ten years or fined not less than ten thousand dollars."
SECTION 2. Subarticle 1, Article 3, Chapter 20, Title 7 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 20-7-105. (A) It is unlawful for a person who is eighteen years of age or older to:
(1) either directly or by extraction from natural substances, or independently by means of chemical processes, or both, unlawfully manufacture amphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of isomers, or methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers in the presence of a minor child; or
(2) knowingly permit a child to be in an environment where a person is selling, offering for sale, or having in such person's possession with intent to sell, deliver, distribute, prescribe, administer, dispense, manufacture, or attempt to manufacture amphetamine or methamphetamine; or
(3) knowingly permit a child to be in an environment where drug paraphernalia or volatile, toxic, or flammable chemicals are stored for the purpose of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture amphetamine or methamphetamine.
(B) A person who violates subsection (A)(1), (2), or (3), upon conviction, for a first offense must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both. Upon conviction for a second or subsequent offense, the person must be imprisoned not more than ten years or fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or both."
SECTION 3. Section 44-53-375 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding at the end:
"(E)(1) Except as otherwise authorized by this section, any person who possesses any two or more different substances listed in this subsection with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, methcathinone or amphetamine is guilty of a felony: liquefied ammonia gas, ephedrine, ether, hypophosphorus acid solutions, hydroiodic acid, hypophosphite salts, hydrochloric acid, iodine crystals or tincture of iodine, phenylacetone, phenylacetic acid, red phosphorous, methylamine, methyl formamide, lithium metal, sodium metal, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium dichromate, sodium dichromate, potassium permanganate, chromium trioxide, methylbenzene, methamphetamine precursor drugs, trichloroethane, sodium thiosulphate, freon, ether, acetone, methanol, bynzyl chloride, acetaldehyde, form amide, chloroform, ethanol, palladium black, thionyl chloride, pent phosphorous chloride, lithium aluminum hydride or 2-propanone.
(2) A person convicted of a violation of subsection (E)(1) is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction for a first offense must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both. For a second or subsequent offense, upon conviction, a person must be imprisoned not more than ten years or fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or both.
(F) The term 'methamphetamine precursor drug', when used in this section, means a drug or product containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine or any of their salts, optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers.
(G) If a person is convicted of a violation of this section, in a manner that requires an emergency or environmental response, the person convicted must be required to make restitution to all public entities involved in the emergency response, to cover the reasonable cost of their participation in the emergency response. The convicted person shall make the restitution in addition to any other fine or penalty required by law."
SECTION 4. Article 3, Chapter 53, Title 44 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 44-53-376. (A) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly cause to be disposed any waste from the production of methamphetamine or knowingly assist, solicit, or conspire with another to dispose of methamphetamine waste.
(B) A person who violates subsection (A) is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction for a first offense, must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both. Upon conviction for a second or subsequent offense, a person must be imprisoned not more than ten years or fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or both.
(C) Exempt from the provisions of this section are the individuals, entities, agencies, law enforcement groups, and those otherwise authorized, who are lawfully tasked with the proper disposal of the waste created from methamphetamine production.
SECTION 5. This act takes effect six months after approval by the Governor./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. MACK explained the amendment.
Rep. MACK moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.
The Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name COUNCIL\ NBD\11857AC05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. Article 3, Chapter 53, Title 44 of the 1976 Code, is amended by adding:
"Section 44-53-398. (A) Products whose sole active ingredient is ephedrine or pseudoephedrine may be offered for retail sale only if sold in blister packaging. Such products may not be offered for retail sale by self-service, but only from behind a counter or other barrier so that such products are not directly accessible by the public but only by a retail store employee or agent.
(B) No person may deliver in any single over the counter sale more than three packages of any product containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as the sole active ingredient or in combination with other active ingredients or any number of packages that contain a combined total of more than nine grams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine base.
(C) It is unlawful for a retail distributor to purchase any product containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine from any person or entity other than a manufacturer or a wholesale distributor registered by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
(D) Persons delivering or selling products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine pursuant to subsection (A) shall require the purchaser to produce a government issued photo identification showing the date of birth of the person and require the purchaser to sign a written or electronic log showing the date of the transaction, name of the person, the person's address, and the amount of the compound, mixture, or preparation. A retail distributor that delivers or sells products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine pursuant to subsection (A) must transmit this log every sixty days to the State Law Enforcement Division in a manner required by the division.
(E) Except as authorized by this section, it is unlawful for any person to possess, have under his or her control, manufacture, deliver, distribute, dispense, administer, purchase, sell, or possess with intent to distribute, any substance containing any amount of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or any of its salts, optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers which have been altered from their original condition so as to be powdered, liquefied, dissolved, solvated, or crushed. This subsection does not apply to any of the substances identified within this subsection which are possessed or altered for a legitimate medical purpose as directed by a person licensed under Title 40 and authorized to prescribe legend drugs.
(F) This section does not apply to:
(1) pediatric products labeled pursuant to federal regulation as primarily intended for administration to children under twelve years of age according to label instructions; and
(2) products that the Board of Pharmacy, upon application of a manufacturer, exempts because the product is formulated in such a way as to effectively prevent the conversion of the active ingredient into methamphetamine or its salts or precursors.
(G) This section preempts all local ordinances or regulations governing the retail sale of over the counter products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine by a retail business except such local ordinances or regulations that existed on or before December 31, 2004. Effective January 1, 2006 this section preempts all local ordinances.
(H)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for a person knowingly to violate any prohibition contained in subsection (A), (B), (C), (D) or (E).
(2) A person convicted of a violation of subsection (A) or (B) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction for a first offense must be fined not more than five hundred dollars, and, upon conviction for a second or subsequent offense must be imprisoned not more than six months or fined not more than one thousand dollars, or both. If a retail distributor is accused of a violation of subsection (B), proof that the retail distributor has engaged a methamphetamine awareness or education program in the store is prima facie evidence that the store has complied with the provisions of this section.
(3) A person convicted of a violation of subsection (C), upon conviction for a first offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more than one thousand dollars, or both. Upon conviction for a second or subsequent offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be imprisoned not more than three years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
(4) A person convicted of a violation of subsection (D) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction for a first offense must be fined not more than five hundred dollars. Upon conviction for a second or subsequent offense, a person must be imprisoned not more than six months or fined not more than one thousand dollars, or both. If a retail distributor is accused of a violation of subsection (D), proof that the retail distributor has engaged a methamphetamine awareness or education program in the store is prima facie evidence that the store has complied with the provisions of this section.
(5) A person convicted of a violation of subsection (E) is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction for a first offense must be imprisoned not more than five years and fined not more than five thousand dollars. The court, upon approval from the solicitor, may request as part of the sentence, that the offender enter and successfully complete a drug treatment program. For a second or subsequent offense, the offender is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than ten years or fined not less than ten thousand dollars."
SECTION 2. Subarticle 1, Article 3, Chapter 20, Title 7 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 20-7-105. (A) It is unlawful for a person who is eighteen years of age or older to:
(1) either directly or by extraction from natural substances, or independently by means of chemical processes, or both, unlawfully manufacture amphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of isomers, or methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers in the presence of a minor child; or
(2) knowingly permit a child to be in an environment where a person is selling, offering for sale, or having in such person's possession with intent to sell, deliver, distribute, prescribe, administer, dispense, manufacture, or attempt to manufacture amphetamine or methamphetamine; or
(3) knowingly permit a child to be in an environment where drug paraphernalia or volatile, toxic, or flammable chemicals are stored for the purpose of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture amphetamine or methamphetamine.
(B) A person who violates subsection (A)(1), (2), or (3), upon conviction, for a first offense must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both. Upon conviction for a second or subsequent offense, the person must be imprisoned not more than ten years or fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or both."
SECTION 3. Section 44-53-375 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding at the end:
"(E)(1) Except as otherwise authorized by this section, any person who possesses any two or more different substances listed in this subsection with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, methcathinone or amphetamine is guilty of a felony: liquefied ammonia gas, ephedrine, ether, hypophosphorus acid solutions, hydroiodic acid, hypophosphite salts, hydrochloric acid, iodine crystals or tincture of iodine, phenylacetone, phenylacetic acid, red phosphorous, methylamine, methyl formamide, lithium metal, sodium metal, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium dichromate, sodium dichromate, potassium permanganate, chromium trioxide, methylbenzene, methamphetamine precursor drugs, trichloroethane, sodium thiosulphate, freon, ether, acetone, methanol, bynzyl chloride, acetaldehyde, form amide, chloroform, ethanol, palladium black, thionyl chloride, pent phosphorous chloride, lithium aluminum hydride or 2-propanone.
(2) A person convicted of a violation of subsection (E)(1) is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction for a first offense must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both. For a second or subsequent offense, upon conviction, a person must be imprisoned not more than ten years or fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or both.
(F) The term 'methamphetamine precursor drug', when used in this section, means a drug or product containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine or any of their salts, optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers.
(G) If a person is convicted of a violation of this section, in a manner that requires an emergency or environmental response, the person convicted must be required to make restitution to all public entities involved in the emergency response, to cover the reasonable cost of their participation in the emergency response. The convicted person shall make the restitution in addition to any other fine or penalty required by law."
SECTION 4. Article 3, Chapter 53, Title 44 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 44-53-376. (A) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly cause to be disposed any waste from the production of methamphetamine or knowingly assist, solicit, or conspire with another to dispose of methamphetamine waste.
(B) A person who violates subsection (A) is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction for a first offense, must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both. Upon conviction for a second or subsequent offense, a person must be imprisoned not more than ten years or fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or both.
(C) Exempt from the provisions of this section are the individuals, entities, agencies, law enforcement groups, and those otherwise authorized, who are lawfully tasked with the proper disposal of the waste created from methamphetamine production.
SECTION 5. This act takes effect six months after approval by the Governor./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. MACK explained the amendment.
Rep. WHITE requested debate on the Bill.
The amendment was then adopted.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
The following Joint Resolution was taken up:
H. 4085 (Word version) -- Rep. Townsend: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO CREATE A JOINT STUDY COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE.
Rep. TRIPP moved to adjourn debate on the Joint Resolution until Saturday, July 1, 2006.
Rep. TOWNSEND moved to table the motion.
Rep. TRIPP demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Battle Bowers Branham G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Clark Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cotty Emory Funderburk Govan J. Hines M. Hines Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal Neilson Norman Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rhoad Rivers Sandifer Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Townsend Weeks Whipper Whitmire
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Barfield Bingham Brady Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clemmons Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Haskins Herbkersman Hinson Huggins Leach Limehouse Loftis McGee Merrill Owens E. H. Pitts Rice Scarborough G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Toole Tripp Vaughn Vick Viers White Witherspoon
So, the motion to adjourn debate was tabled.
Reps. LOFTIS, VAUGHN, OWENS, TRIPP, LUCAS, HAMILTON, G. R. SMITH, DUNCAN, CATO, HASKINS, J. R. SMITH, MACK, DAVENPORT, R. BROWN, WHIPPER, SCOTT, JENNINGS, J. H. NEAL, CLYBURN, GOVAN, HERBKERSMAN, VIERS, HOSEY, MERRILL, EDGE, HINSON, BARFIELD, ALLEN and COTTY requested debate on the Joint Resolution.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 237 (Word version) -- Senator Ryberg: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 56-1-465 AND 56-1-810, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROVIDING A PERSON WITH A NOTICE SUSPENDING HIS DRIVER'S LICENSE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, SO AS TO REVISE THE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE.
Reps. VAUGHN, CATO, HAMILTON, LEACH, G. R. SMITH, TRIPP, MAHAFFEY and OWENS requested debate on the Bill.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 384 (Word version) -- Senators Lourie, Thomas, Reese, Bryant, Knotts, Sheheen, Hutto, McGill, Jackson, Ford, Scott, Malloy, Land, Gregory, Drummond, Pinckney, Cromer, Short, Matthews, Campsen, Anderson and Hawkins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-17-500, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUPPLYING MINORS WITH TOBACCO OR CIGARETTES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS PROVISION APPLIES TO THE SALE, FURNISHING, GIVING, DISTRIBUTION, AND PROVISION TO A MINOR OF CIGARETTES, TOBACCO, CIGARETTE PAPER, OR A TOBACCO PRODUCT; TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS LESS THAN EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE MAY NOT PURCHASE, ACCEPT RECEIPT OF, POSSESS, ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE, ATTEMPT TO ACCEPT RECEIPT OF, OR ATTEMPT TO POSSESS A TOBACCO PRODUCT OR TO OFFER FRAUDULENT PROOF OF AGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING OR POSSESSING A TOBACCO PRODUCT; TO REVISE THE DISBURSEMENT OF FINES COLLECTED, SO AS TO DISTRIBUTE ONE-HALF OF THESE FINES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL FOR ITS YOUTH SMOKING PREVENTION PLAN; TO AUTHORIZE COMMUNITY SERVICE IN LIEU OF FINING A MINOR; AND TO REVISE THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION.
Rep. COOPER made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE sustained the Point of Order.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 236 (Word version) -- Senator Ryberg: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-510, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL USE OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD AND SUBMITTING A FRAUDULENT APPLICATION FOR A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO DISPLAY OR POSSESS A COUNTERFEIT DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-515, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL ALTERATION, SALE, ISSUANCE, OR USE OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO PRODUCE OR POSSESS A COUNTERFEIT DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD.
Rep. COOPER made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE sustained the Point of Order.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 610 (Word version) -- Senators Fair, Campsen, O'Dell, Scott, Bryant, Cleary, Rankin, Williams, Thomas, Hayes and Cromer: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-6-440, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES THAT INDICATE THAT A PERSON HAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS CANDIDATES FOR CERTIFICATION AS CLASS II-SCO (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) IN ANY COUNTY WITH A PRISON SYSTEM THAT BORDERS ANOTHER STATE TO HOLD A DRIVER'S LICENSE ISSUED BY ANY JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO REPLACE IT WITH A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS CANDIDATES FOR CERTIFICATION AS STATE OR LOCAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS TO HOLD A DRIVER'S LICENSE ISSUED BY ANY JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Rep. OWENS made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE sustained the Point of Order.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 737 (Word version) -- Senator Ryberg: A BILL TO AMEND THE TITLE OF CHAPTER 2, TITLE 56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976; TO REPEAL SECTION 56-2-2740, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES' REFUSAL TO RENEW A DRIVER'S LICENSE AND MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION OF A PERSON WHO DOES NOT PAY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES ON A MOTOR VEHICLE, THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSE PLATES, AND THE VALIDATION AND REVALIDATION OF DECALS; TO AMEND CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 56, BY ADDING ARTICLE 1, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATION, TITLING, AND SALE OF LOW SPEED VEHICLES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS OF TERMS CONTAINED IN CERTAIN PROVISIONS THAT PERTAIN TO THE ISSUANCE OF DRIVER'S LICENSES, SO AS TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR THE TERMS "LOW SPEED VEHICLE", "ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE", "OPERATOR" OR "DRIVER", AND "PERSON"; TO ADD SECTION 56-5-820 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE A LOW SPEED VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS THAT REGULATE THE OPERATION OF THESE VEHICLES, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY; AND TO ADD SECTION 56-1-405 SO AS TO RECODIFY THE PROVISION THAT RELATES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES' REFUSAL TO RENEW A DRIVER'S LICENSE AND MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION OF A PERSON WHO DOES NOT PAY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES ON A MOTOR VEHICLE, THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSE PLATES, AND THE VALIDATION AND REVALIDATION OF DECALS.
Rep. COOPER made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE sustained the Point of Order.
The following Joint Resolution was taken up:
H. 4156 (Word version) -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION-BOARD OF NURSING, RELATING TO REPEAL OF DUPLICATIVE REGULATIONS INCLUDED IN THE NURSE PRACTICE ACT, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 2973, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Rep. COOPER made the Point of Order that the Joint Resolution was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE sustained the Point of Order.
The following Joint Resolution was taken up:
H. 4157 (Word version) -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION-BOARD OF DENTISTRY, RELATING TO GUIDELINES FOR SEDATION AND GENERAL ANESTHESIA, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 2961, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Rep. COOPER made the Point of Order that the Joint Resolution was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE sustained the Point of Order.
The following Bill was taken up:
H. 3630 (Word version) -- Reps. Whipper, Martin, J. H. Neal, Govan, Anderson, Bales, Barfield, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, Clyburn, Davenport, Hardwick, M. Hines, Jefferson, Lee, Mack, Moody-Lawrence, Rutherford and Weeks: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-7-25 SO AS TO REQUIRE A HOSPITAL TO GIVE PATIENTS BEING DISCHARGED FROM THE EMERGENCY ROOM, THE OPTION OF RECEIVING AT LEAST A TWENTY-FOUR HOUR SUPPLY OF ANY MEDICATIONS BEING PRESCRIBED.
Rep. LITTLEJOHN made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE sustained the Point of Order.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 352 (Word version) -- Senator Grooms: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 57-23-810 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE PORTION OF ROADSIDE VEGETATION ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 95 IN COLLETON COUNTY BETWEEN MILE MARKERS 52 AND 54 MAY BE MOWED BEYOND THIRTY FEET FROM THE PAVEMENT.
Rep. COOPER made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE sustained the Point of Order.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 347 (Word version) -- Senators Lourie, Jackson, Mescher, Ford, Knotts, Cleary, Scott, Short, Patterson, Land, Cromer, Elliott, Ryberg, Grooms and Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-25-210 SO AS TO MAKE IT A CRIME TO DEFACE, VANDALIZE, TAMPER WITH, OR REMOVE A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGN, TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION.
Rep. COOPER made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE sustained the Point of Order.
On motion of Rep. DAVENPORT, with unanimous consent, the following Joint Resolution was ordered recalled from the Committee on Ways and Means:
S. 286 (Word version) -- Senator Hawkins: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF A SURPLUS NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY IN INMAN, SOUTH CAROLINA, TO THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY DISTRICT ONE SCHOOL BOARD.
Rep. LIMEHOUSE, with unanimous consent, withdrew his request for debate on S. 348 (Word version); however, other requests for debate remained on the Bill.
At 1:15 p.m. the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Acts and Joint Resolutions were duly ratified:
(R92, S. 67 (Word version)) -- Senators Short, Elliott and Ford: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-11-1460 SO AS TO ENACT THE "VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PERSONNEL JOB PROTECTION ACT", PROHIBITING AN EMPLOYER FROM FIRING A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER OR EMERGENCY SERVICES PERSONNEL WHO IS RESPONDING IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING HIS DUTIES AS A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER OR EMERGENCY SERVICES PERSONNEL TO AN EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT OR THE GOVERNOR.
(R93, S. 85 (Word version)) -- Senators McConnell, Moore, Elliott, Alexander, Fair, Richardson, Ford and Campsen: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-650, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT INVESTIGATION AND DISPOSITION PROCEDURES, INCLUDING CRITERIA FOR PLACING A PERPETRATOR ON THE CENTRAL REGISTRY FOR CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PLACEMENT OF A PERSON'S NAME ON THE CENTRAL REGISTRY CANNOT BE WAIVED BY ANY PARTY OR BY THE COURT AND TO CLARIFY THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A PERPETRATOR OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT MUST BE PLACED ON THE CENTRAL REGISTRY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-680, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CENTRAL REGISTRY OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF DETERMINATION OF A PERSON'S HISTORY OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT IS A CONDITION FOR EMPLOYMENT OR VOLUNTEER SERVICE OR FOR ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE OR REGISTRATION, THE PERSON MUST BE SCREENED AGAINST THE CENTRAL REGISTRY BEFORE EMPLOYMENT OR VOLUNTEER SERVICE OR BEFORE ISSUANCE OF THE LICENSE OR REGISTRATION AND UPON RENEWAL OF THE FACILITY LICENSE OR REGISTRATION.
(R94, S. 135 (Word version)) -- Senator Gregory: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 42-7-65, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF WAGES FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE ENTITY USING A VOLUNTARY STATE CONSTABLE'S SERVICES MUST APPROVE AND FUND THE PREMIUMS FOR HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION SYSTEM AND INSTEAD PROVIDE THAT THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION PREMIUMS FOR THESE CONSTABLES MUST BE PAID FROM THE STATE GENERAL FUND UPON WARRANT OF THE CHIEF OF THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION.
(R95, S. 144 (Word version)) -- Senators Mescher, Short and Rankin: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 59-63-80 AND 59-63-90 SO AS TO REQUIRE EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ADOPT A POLICY REQUIRING A STUDENT WITH SPECIAL HEALTH CARE NEEDS TO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL HEALTH CARE PLAN, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELEMENTS OF THE POLICY INCLUDING REQUIRING THE PARENT OF THE STUDENT TO PROVIDE CERTAIN MEDICAL INFORMATION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF A WRITTEN STUDENT INDIVIDUAL HEALTH CARE PLAN, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL DEVELOP A NOTICE TO BE SENT BY EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ALL PARENTS OR GUARDIANS NOTIFYING THEM OF CERTAIN AVAILABLE SERVICES AND RIGHTS, AND TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-60 RELATING TO IMMUNITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR DISTRICTS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.
(R96, S. 289 (Word version)) -- Senator Gregory: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2420, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COMMERCIAL FUR LICENSES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE LICENSE FEES; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2460, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE TRAPPING OF FURBEARERS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TYPES OF TRAPS WHICH MAY BE USED; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2475, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A FUR PROCESSOR'S LICENSE, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A LICENSE AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2480, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PERSONS WHO ARE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A FUR BUYERS LICENSE, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CORRECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2490, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO FUR BUYERS AND PROCESSORS REQUIRED TO KEEP A DAILY REGISTER, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE PERSONS REQUIRED TO KEEP SUCH A REGISTER AND THE CONTENTS OF THE REGISTER; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2510, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE TAGGING OF BOBCAT AND OTTER FURS, PELTS, AND HIDES AND THE ISSUANCE AND FEES FOR THOSE TAGS, SO AS TO REVISE THOSE PERSONS REQUIRED TO HAVE SUCH A TAG AND THE FEES AND PROCEDURES FOR THOSE TAGS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2515, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL TRAFFICKING IN FURS OR FURBEARING ANIMALS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE ELEMENTS OF THIS OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2540, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE COMMERCIAL TRAPPING SEASON FOR FURBEARING ANIMALS, SO AS TO REVISE THE LENGTH OF THIS SEASON; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2560, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF CERTAIN FUR AND FURBEARING PROVISIONS OF LAW, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE PROVISIONS TO WHICH THESE PENALTIES APPLY; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2610, RELATING TO FOX AND COYOTE HUNTING ENCLOSURE PERMITS, SO AS TO REVISE THE PERMIT YEAR; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 50-11-2500 RELATING TO PERMITS TO HOLD FURS BEYOND THE END OF THE REGULAR SEASON FOR TAKING FUR BEARING ANIMALS.
(R97, S. 291 (Word version)) -- Senators Gregory and Knotts: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 50-9-510, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LICENSES AUTHORIZED FOR SALE BY THE DEPARTMENT, SO AS TO REVISE THE AGE AND FEE REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATEWIDE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE.
(R98, S. 362 (Word version)) -- Senators J. V. Smith and McGill: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 50, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL FOR THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE STANDARDS THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL MUST MEET TO TEACH AT THE SCHOOL; TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SCHOOL; TO PROVIDE THAT OUT-OF-STATE OR INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE STUDENTS SHALL PAY TUITION AS DETERMINED BY THE SCHOOL; TO CHANGE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO THE PRESIDENT, EXEMPT THE PRESIDENT FROM THE STATE EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ACT, AND PROVIDE THAT THE VICE PRESIDENTS SERVE AT THE WILL OF THE PRESIDENT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHALL ADOPT POLICIES AND PROMULGATE REGULATIONS NECESSARY FOR THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SCHOOL.
(R99, S. 491 (Word version)) -- Senators McConnell, Martin and Ford: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 42-3-80, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, SO AS TO TIE THE MAXIMUM SALARY PAID TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR TO THE SALARY PAID TO COMMISSIONERS INSTEAD OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.
(R100, S. 535 (Word version)) -- Senators Hutto, Moore, Ryberg, Richardson and Pinckney: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-237, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE HARVEST OF STRIPED BASS AND STRIPED BASS HYBRIDS IN PORTIONS OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER, SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS MORE THAN TWO STRIPED BASS, STRIPED BASS HYBRIDS, WHITE BASS, OR ANY COMBINATION OF THESE SPECIES IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER AND TO PROVIDE THAT ANY LAWFUL POSSESSED FISH OF EACH OF THESE SPECIES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF TWENTY-SEVEN INCHES IN TOTAL LENGTH; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 50-13-120 RELATING TO NO SIZE LIMITS ON CERTAIN FRESH WATER FISH.
(R101, H. 3142 (Word version)) -- Reps. White, Davenport, Mahaffey and Owens: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 15 TO CHAPTER 33, TITLE 40 SO AS TO ENACT THE NURSE LICENSURE COMPACT WHICH ENTERS SOUTH CAROLINA INTO A MULTI-STATE NURSE LICENSURE COMPACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECIPROCAL PRACTICE OF NURSING AMONG THE STATES THAT ARE PARTIES TO THE COMPACT; TO PROVIDE FOR THE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES THAT APPLY TO PRACTICING NURSING IN OTHER STATES PURSUANT TO THE COMPACT; TO PROVIDE FOR A COORDINATED LICENSURE INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR SHARING DATA AMONG THE COMPACT STATES; TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION; TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF NURSES LICENSED IN STATES THAT ARE PARTIES TO THE COMPACT; TO ADD SECTION 40-33-525 SO AS TO REQUIRE, BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2007, FOREIGN-EDUCATED APPLICANTS FOR LICENSURE AS A REGISTERED NURSE TO PASS THE NATIONAL COUNCIL LICENSURE EXAMINATION AND AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY TEST; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE BOARD OF NURSING SHALL PROMULGATE REGULATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE.
(R102, H. 3155 (Word version)) -- Reps. Townsend, Wilkins, Walker, Littlejohn, Battle, Clark, Cobb-Hunter, Simrill, Sandifer, Haley, Brady, Hagood, Talley, G.R. Smith and Neilson: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 59 TO TITLE 59 SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CURRICULUM ORGANIZED AROUND A CAREER CLUSTER SYSTEM THAT MUST PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH BOTH STRONG ACADEMICS AND REAL-WORLD PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS; TO AMEND SECTION 59-17-135, RELATING TO CHARACTER EDUCATION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TRAITS WHICH MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO SCHOOL BOARD POLICIES ADDRESSING CHARACTER EDUCATION; TO AMEND SECTION 59-18-900, RELATING TO SCHOOL REPORT CARDS, SO AS TO EXPAND THE CONTENT OF THE REPORT CARD TO INCLUDE, DROPOUT REDUCTION DATA; AND TO REPEAL ACT 450 OF 1994 AND SECTION 59-52-95 RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION ACT OF 1994.
(R103, H. 3297 (Word version)) -- Rep. Harrell: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM SALES TAX, INCLUDING PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS, SO AS TO ALSO INCLUDE IN THIS EXEMPTION, PRESCRIPTIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS.
(R104, H. 3393 (Word version)) -- Reps. M.A. Pitts, Anthony, Duncan, Hardwick, Herbkersman, Sinclair and Witherspoon: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1135, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COMMERCIAL OR NONCOMMERCIAL FISHING LICENSES REQUIRED FOR TAKING NONGAME FISH IN FRESHWATERS WITH CERTAIN FISHING DEVICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A JUG PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTS ASSISTING JUG PERMIT HOLDERS.
(R105, H. 3577 (Word version)) -- Reps. Witherspoon, Frye, Hiott, Ott and Vick: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 46-13-45, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PESTICIDE REGISTRATION FEES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE ANNUAL BASIC REGISTRATION FEE, TO PROVIDE THAT THIS FEE MAY NOT BE INCREASED EXCEPT IN AN ACT SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, AND FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF THESE FUNDS.
(R106, H. 3674 (Word version)) -- Reps. Bingham and Mahaffey: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-15-275 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY TO ISSUE A LICENSE BY CREDENTIALS TO PRACTICE DENTISTRY AND TO ESTABLISH THE CRITERIA FOR OBTAINING SUCH LICENSURE.
(R107, H. 3695 (Word version)) -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF DENTISTRY-DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION, RELATING TO EXAMINATION OF DENTISTS AND DENTAL HYGIENISTS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 2949, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
(R108, H. 3696 (Word version)) -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF DENTISTRY-DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION, RELATING TO RE-EXAMINATION, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 2950, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
(R109, H. 3870 (Word version)) -- Reps. Walker and Sinclair: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 1105 OF 1956, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF THE STARTEX-JACKSON-WELLFORD-DUNCAN WATER DISTRICT IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO INCREASE FROM FIVE TO SEVEN THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS AND TO PROVIDE THAT ONE MEMBER MAY RESIDE IN THE SERVICE AREA OF THE DISTRICT.
(R110, H. 4038 (Word version)) -- Reps. Govan, Cobb-Hunter and Ott: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-440, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN ORANGEBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE CERTAIN VOTING PRECINCTS OF ORANGEBURG COUNTY AND REDESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD.
Rep. MERRILL moved that the House recede until 2:30 p.m., which was agreed to.
At 2:30 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 Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R73) H. 3716 -- 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, 2005; 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. HARRELL explained the Veto.
Veto 1. Part IA, Section 1, page 5, Department of Education, Education Improvement Act, Standard, Teaching, Learning, Account, Student Testing, Other Operating Expenses, $1,000,559.
Rep. HARRELL explained the Veto.
Rep. E. H. PITTS spoke against the Veto.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Emory Funderburk Govan Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Davenport Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Huggins Kirsh Limehouse Loftis Merrill Norman Owens E. H. Pitts Rice Simrill G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Toole Umphlett Vaughn Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 2. Part IA, Section 5A, page 25, Commission on Higher Education, Administration, Think TEC/Fastrac - Entrepreneurial Ed/Mento, $250,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Duncan Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Mack Martin McCraw McGee Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Parks Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rutherford Sandifer Scott Skelton D. C. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Townsend Vaughn Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Cotty Delleney Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Huggins Kirsh Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Norman Owens Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Simrill Sinclair G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 3. Part IA, Section 5B, page 29, Higher Education Tuition Grants Commission, Administration, SC Student Legislature, $17,780.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Mack Martin McCraw Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Rhoad Rice Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Harrison Huggins Lucas Mahaffey McGee Merrill Norman Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Sinclair G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 4. Part IA, Section 5D, page 32, Clemson University, Education & General, Unrestricted, Engineering Research Centers, $791,272.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Talley Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Weeks White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bingham Hagood Norman E. H. Pitts W. D. Smith Stewart Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 5. Part IA, Section 5E, page 35, University of Charleston, Education & General, Business - Economic Partnership Initiative, $591,550.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Mack Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Skelton D. C. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Brady Clyburn Cotty Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Haskins Huggins Kirsh Lucas Mahaffey Norman Owens E. H. Pitts Rice Simrill Sinclair G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
I wanted to override Veto No. 5, however, an error was made in recording my vote. My vote should have been recorded as voting to override Veto No. 5.
Rep. William Clyburn
Veto 6. Part IA; Section 5E; page 35; University of Charleston; Education & General; Education - Effective Teaching and Learning.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Mack McCraw McGee McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Skelton D. C. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Brady Chalk Cotty Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Haskins Huggins Kirsh Loftis Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Norman Owens E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Simrill Sinclair G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Viers Walker
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 7. Part IA, Section 5G, page 39, Francis Marion University, Education & General, Unrestricted, Small and Minority Business Assistance, $500,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hosey Jefferson Jennings Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lucas Mack McCraw McGee McLeod Miller J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton J. E. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Brady Cato Chalk Cotty Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Haskins Hiott Huggins Kirsh Loftis Mahaffey Merrill Norman Owens E. H. Pitts Rice D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Stewart Talley Toole Umphlett Vaughn Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 8. Part IA, Section 5G, page 39, Francis Marion University, Education & General, Unrestricted, Omega Project, $56,147.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Davenport Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hardwick Harrell Hayes J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Miller J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Skelton J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Vick Walker Weeks Whipper Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Dantzler Delleney Duncan Hagood Haley Hamilton Haskins Hiott Huggins Kirsh Merrill Norman Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Viers White
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 9. Part IA, Section 5KC, page 49, USC - Upstate, Education & General, Unrestricted, Other Operating Expenses, $1,000,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown Cato Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Duncan Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Talley Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Brady Chalk Cotty Delleney Frye Hagood Haley Hardwick Huggins Lucas McGee Norman Pinson E. H. Pitts G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 10. Part IA, Section 5KD, page 51, USC - Beaufort Campus, Education & General, Unrestricted, Other Operating Expenses, $500,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Duncan Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Mack Mahaffey McCraw McGee McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Brady Cotty Delleney Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Haskins Kirsh Lucas Merrill Neilson Norman E. H. Pitts G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 11. Part IA, Section 5KF, page 55, USC - Salkehatchie Campus, Education & General, Unrestricted, Salkehatchie Leadership Center, $100,460.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cotty Dantzler Davenport Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hagood Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Vaughn Vick Walker Weeks Whipper Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Brady Delleney Haley Huggins Kirsh Lucas McGee Merrill Norman Owens E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers White
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 12. Part IA, Section 5MA, page 63, Medical University of South Carolina, Education & General, Unrestricted, Rural Dentists Incentive, $250,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Cotty Kirsh Norman G. R. Smith Stewart
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 13. Part IA: Section 5N, page 67, Technical & Comprehensive Education Bd, Instructional Programs, Technical Colleges, Trident Tech-Culinary Arts, $775,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Chalk Chellis Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Delleney Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hagood Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rhoad Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Cato Clark Davenport Duncan Frye Haley Haskins Kirsh Norman E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Walker
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Due to House Bill H. 3777, of which I am the primary sponsor, being heard in Senate Judiciary Committee, I missed the votes on Vetoes No. 1 through 13. Had I been present, I would have voted to override the vetoes.
Rep. Catherine C. Ceips
Due to House Bill H. 3777, of which I am a cosponsor, being heard in Senate Judiciary Committee, I missed the vote on Vetoes No. 1 through 13. Had I been present, I would have voted to override the vetoes.
Rep. Wallace B. Scarborough
Veto 14. Part IA, Section 6, page 71, Educational Television Commission, Program and Services, Public Education, School Services, Other Operating Expenses, $20,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Anderson Bales Battle Bingham Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Ceips Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cotty Emory Funderburk Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman M. Hines Hiott Hosey Jefferson Jennings Mack Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Scott Skelton G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Toole Viers Weeks
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Anthony Bailey Ballentine Barfield Brady Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrison J. Hines Hinson Howard Huggins Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mahaffey McGee Merrill Norman Owens Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Walker Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Please show that I intended to vote to override Veto No. 14.
Rep. Joan Brady
Veto 15. Part IA, Section 6, page 71, Educational Television Commission, Program and Services, Public Education, General Support and Services, Other Personal Services, $75,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Anderson Anthony Bales Battle Bingham Bowers Branham Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Ceips Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cotty Emory Funderburk Govan Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hiott Hosey Jefferson Jennings Mack Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal Ott Parks Phillips Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Scott Skelton G. M. Smith Toole Vick Viers Weeks
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Bailey Ballentine Barfield Brady Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Hinson Howard Huggins Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mahaffey McGee Merrill Neilson Norman Owens Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Scarborough Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Walker Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Please show that I intended to vote to override Veto No. 15.
Rep. Joan Brady
Veto 16. Part IA, Section 6, page 72, Educational Television Commission, Program and Services, Agency Services, Local Government and Business Services, Other Operating Expenses, $9,626.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Anderson Anthony Bales Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Ceips Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cotty Emory Funderburk Govan Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hiott Hosey Jefferson Jennings Littlejohn Mack Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Scott Skelton D. C. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Toole Viers Weeks Whitmire
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Bailey Ballentine Barfield Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Hinson Howard Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Loftis Lucas Mahaffey McGee Merrill Norman Owens Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Simrill Sinclair G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Walker Whipper White Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 17. Part IA, Section 6, page 72, Educational Television Commission, Program and Services, General Support and Services, Other Operating Expenses, $759,000.
Rep. HARRELL spoke against the Veto.
Rep. ALTMAN spoke in favor of the Veto.
Rep. ALTMAN continued speaking.
Rep. WHIPPER spoke against the Veto.
Rep. J. H. NEAL spoke against the Veto.
Rep. MACK spoke against the Veto.
Rep. GOVAN 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:
Agnew Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Bailey Barfield Cato Clemmons Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Hagood Haley Hamilton Hinson Leach Limehouse Loftis Merrill Norman Owens E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Scarborough Simrill G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Umphlett Vaughn Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 18. Part IA, Section 8, page 79, Department of Health and Human Services, Programs and Services, Other Entities Assistance, ReGenesis Community Health Center, $100,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Huggins Kirsh Norman E. H. Pitts Rice D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 19. Part IA, Section 9, page 85, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and Services, Family Health, Access to Care, Lancaster Kershaw Health Center, $175,738.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Delleney Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scott Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Duncan Haley Limehouse Norman Scarborough Simrill Stewart Talley Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 20. Part IA, Section 9, page 85, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Programs and Services, Family Health, Access to Care, Family Health Centers, $444,603.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Cotty Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rutherford Sandifer Sinclair Skelton G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Haley Kirsh McGee Norman Scarborough Simrill D. C. Smith Stewart Talley Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 21. Part IA, Section 10, page 94, Department of Mental Health, Programs and Services, Support Services, Other Personal Services, $452,395.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Anderson Anthony Bailey Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cotty Dantzler Delleney Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Herbkersman Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee Merrill Miller J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Hagood Limehouse Norman J. R. Smith
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 22. Part IA, Section 11, page 98, Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, Programs & Services, Mental Retardation Family Support Program, Children's Services, Special Olympics, $174,175.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rhoad Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Hagood Haley Norman E. H. Pitts
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 23. Part IA, Section 13, page 111, Department of Social Services, Programs and Services, Employment and Training Services, Case Management, Greenville Urban League, $18,389.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Loftis Mack McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts Rhoad Rutherford Scott Skelton G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Townsend Vaughn Vick Weeks Whitmire
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Brady Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Frye Hagood Haley Hardwick Hinson Hiott Huggins Kirsh Limehouse Littlejohn Lucas Mahaffey McGee Merrill Neilson Norman M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker White Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 24 . Part IA, Section 15, page 119, Department of Archives and History, Historical Services, Old Exchange Building, $150,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Mack Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Townsend Umphlett Vick Viers Weeks White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Brady Cato Cotty Davenport Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Harrison Haskins Huggins Kirsh Lucas Mahaffey Norman Ott E. H. Pitts D. C. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Walker Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 25. Part IA, Section 18, page 122, Arts Commission, Statewide Arts Service, Other Operating Expenses, $125,500.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Ceips Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Davenport Emory Funderburk Govan Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Lucas Mack Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Townsend Vaughn Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Cato Chalk Cotty Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Haskins Huggins Kirsh Limehouse Loftis Mahaffey Merrill Norman E. H. Pitts Scarborough D. C. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 26. Part IA, Section 21, page 131, Forestry Commission, Administration, Other Operating Expenses, $128,520.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hagood Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Mack Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Brady Duncan Haley Mahaffey Merrill Norman Scarborough D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stewart
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 27. Part IA, Section 23, page 137, Clemson University (Public Service Activities), Agricultural Research, Other Operating Expenses, $1,798,539.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice 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 Umphlett Vaughn Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Hagood Norman
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
I was out of the Chamber and did not vote on Veto No. 27. I would have voted to override the veto.
Rep. Doug Jennings
Rep. Ted Vick
Veto 28. Part IA, Section 26, page 150, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Administration, Tourism Sales and Marketing, Contributions, $377,586.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Duncan Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Skelton G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bingham Delleney Frye Hagood Haley Huggins Lucas Norman Owens E. H. Pitts Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 29. Part IA, Section 26, page 150, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism, Administration, Tourism Sales & Marketing, Canadian Promotions, $85,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rhoad Rice Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Huggins Kirsh Lucas Norman E. H. Pitts D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 30. Part IA, Section 26, page 151, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism, Administration, Tourism Sales & Marketing, Wildlife Expo, $175,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Talley Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Weeks White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Brady Coleman Frye Hagood Haley Harrison Huggins Norman E. H. Pitts D. C. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 31. Part IA, Section 26, page 151, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism, Administration, Tourism Sales & Marketing, US Youth Games, $25,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Mack Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Vaughn Vick Viers Weeks Whipper Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Clemmons Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Hinson Huggins Limehouse Lucas Mahaffey McGee Merrill Norman Owens Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Scarborough Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett White
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 32. Part IA, Section 26, page 151, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism, Administration, Recreation Planning, Eng., Palmetto Conservation Foundation, $109,180.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Duncan Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. M. Neal Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Scott Simrill Skelton G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Delleney Frye Hagood Haley Huggins Kirsh Limehouse Loftis Lucas Mahaffey Neilson Norman E. H. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough D. C. Smith Talley Walker Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 33. Part IA, Section 26, page 151, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism, Administration, Recreation Planning, Eng., Palmetto Trails, $90,820.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Duncan Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Mack Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Clemmons Delleney Frye Hagood Haley Huggins Kirsh Limehouse Loftis Lucas Mahaffey Neilson Norman E. H. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough D. C. Smith Talley Walker Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 34. Part IA, Section 26, page 151, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism, Administration, Tourism Sales & Marketing, Spoleto, $246,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Ceips Chalk Chellis Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Harrell Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines Hinson Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rhoad Rice Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Talley Taylor Umphlett Vick Viers Weeks Whipper Whitmire
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Brady Cato Clark Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrison Haskins Hiott Huggins Kirsh Loftis Lucas Norman E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Thompson Toole Townsend Vaughn Walker White Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 35. Part IA, Section 27, page 155, Department of Commerce, Administration & Support, Business Solutions, SC Technology Alliance, $300,000.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Talley Taylor Thompson Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Dantzler Frye Hagood Haley Huggins Lucas McGee Merrill Norman Owens E. H. Pitts Rice Scarborough D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Toole Umphlett
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 36. Part IA, Section 27, page 155, Department of Commerce, Administration & Support, Business Development, SC World Trade Park and Education Center, $197,688.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Duncan Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Rutherford Scarborough Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Thompson Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Cotty Delleney Frye Hagood Haley Harrison Huggins Lucas Norman E. H. Pitts Rice Sandifer D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Toole Whitmire
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 37. Part IA, Section 26, page 150, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Administration, Executive Offices, Other Personal Services, $105,700.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Funderburk Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Rutherford Scott Skelton D. C. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Townsend Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Bingham Brady Cotty Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrison Herbkersman Huggins Kirsh McGee Merrill Norman Owens Pinson E. H. Pitts Sandifer Scarborough Simrill Sinclair G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 38. Part IA, Section 26, page 151, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Community and Economic Development, Other Operating Expenses, $285,341.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Funderburk Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Rutherford Scott Skelton D. C. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Bingham Brady Cotty Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Harrison Huggins McGee Merrill Norman Owens E. H. Pitts Sandifer Scarborough Simrill Sinclair G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Toole Umphlett Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 39. Part IA, Section 61, page 257, Adjutant General's Office, Administration, Funeral Caisson, $98,260.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Norman Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice 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 Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
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.
Veto 40. Part IA, Section 63, page 264, Budget and Control Board, Operations and Executive Training, Internal Operations, Other Operating Expenses, $1,266,255.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Mack Mahaffey McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rhoad Rivers Scott Skelton G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Vaughn Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Brady Cotty Delleney Duncan Hagood Haley Harrison Huggins Limehouse Lucas McGee Merrill Norman Owens E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 41. Part IA, Section 63, page 264, Budget & Control Board, Operations and Executive Training, Executive Institute, Other Operating Expenses, $109,833.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Scott Sinclair Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Townsend Vaughn Vick Weeks Whipper White Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Brady Delleney Duncan Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrison Huggins Limehouse Lucas McGee Merrill Norman Owens E. H. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Whitmire Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 42 . Part IA, Section 63, page 266, Budget & Control Board, Budget and Analyses Division, Office of Research and Statistics, Geodetic and Mapping Survey, Other Operating Expenses, $81,467.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Sandifer Scott Simrill Skelton G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Townsend Umphlett Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Brady Duncan Hagood Haley Huggins Limehouse Norman Owens E. H. Pitts Rice Scarborough Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Viers Whitmire
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 43. Part IA, Section 63, page 267, Budget & Control Board, Budget and Analyses Division, Office of Human Resources, Administration, Other Operating Expenses, $139,289.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Mack Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Rhoad Rivers Skelton G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Weeks Whipper White Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Brady Delleney Duncan Hagood Haley Huggins Limehouse Lucas Mahaffey McGee Merrill Norman Owens Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Viers Walker Whitmire
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 44. Part IA, Section 63, page 267, Budget & Control Board, Budget and Analyses Division, Office of Human Resources, Administration, SC Leadership, $53,833.
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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Mack Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Parks Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Sandifer Scott Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Vick Viers Weeks Whipper Whitmire Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Delleney Duncan Hagood Haley Hamilton Huggins Kirsh Limehouse Loftis Lucas Mahaffey McGee Merrill Norman Owens Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Scarborough Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Walker White Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
A voting card malfunction prevented me from voting on Veto No. 44.
I attempted to vote to override.
Rep. Bill Bowers
Veto 45. Part IA, Section 63, page 268, Budget & Control Board, Budget and Analyses Division, Office of Human Resources, Human Resource Consulting, Other Operating Expenses: $683,803.
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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chellis Clark Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Mack Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Sandifer Scott Sinclair Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Townsend Vaughn Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Brady Chalk Cotty Delleney Duncan Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrison Huggins Lucas Mahaffey McGee Merrill Norman Owens Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Scarborough Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 46. Part IA, Section 63, page 268, Budget and Control Board, Budget and Analyses Division, Office of Human Resources, Human Resource Development, Other Operating Expenses, $152,769.
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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hardwick Harrell Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Loftis Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Sandifer Scott Skelton G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Townsend Vaughn Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Brady Chalk Cotty Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Huggins Kirsh Limehouse Lucas Mahaffey McGee Merrill Norman Owens Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Scarborough Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 47. Part IA, Section 63, page 276, Budget & Control Board, State CIO Division, IT Planning & Management, Other Operating Expenses, $1,872,500.
Rep. HARRELL spoke against the Veto.
Rep. HARRELL continued speaking.
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:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Davenport Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rivers Sandifer Scott Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Townsend Vaughn Vick Viers Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Brady Cotty Dantzler Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Harrison Hiott Huggins Limehouse Lucas McGee McLeod Merrill Norman Owens Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Scarborough Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 48. Part IA, Section 64, page 281, Department of Revenue, Programs and Services, Other Operating Expenses, $2,696,538.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Allen Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Emory Funderburk Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Lee Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rhoad Rivers Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Brady Cobb-Hunter Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Howard Huggins Norman Ott Owens E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 49. Part 1B, Section 1.21, Department of Education, page 298; SDE: Mathematics and Science Unit of the Office of Curriculum and Standards.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Allen Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Lee Limehouse Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rhoad Rice Rivers Scarborough Scott Sinclair Skelton G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Townsend Umphlett Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Brady Cotty Delleney Duncan Edge Frye Hagood Haley Harrison Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Kirsh Littlejohn Lucas McGee Merrill Norman Owens E. H. Pitts Sandifer Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 50. Part 1B, Section 5M.3, Medical University of South Carolina, page 328, MUSC: Rural Dentist Program.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Allen Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Branham Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kirsh Limehouse Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Norman
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Our vote on Veto No. 50 was not recorded due to a machine malfunction.
Rep. Mack T. Hines
Rep. Jerry N. Govan, Jr.
Veto 51. Part 1B, Section 5N.5, State Board for Technical & Comprehensive Education, page 329, TEC: Professionally Licensed Training.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland J. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Delleney Edge Emory Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Kennedy Leach Lee Limehouse Lucas Mack Martin McCraw McGee McLeod J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sinclair Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Brady Cotty Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Harrison Huggins Kirsh Mahaffey Merrill Norman Owens E. H. Pitts Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Toole Umphlett Whitmire
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 52. Part 1B, Section 8.16, Department of Health and Human Services, page 333, DHHS: Chiropractic Services.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Altman Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Branham Breeland J. Brown Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Hagood Kirsh Norman D. C. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 53. Part 1B, Section 8.26, Department of Health and Human Services, page 334, DHHS: Prescription Reimbursement Payment Methodology.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Allen Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Stewart Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Hagood Limehouse Norman W. D. Smith Talley
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 54. Part 1B, Section 8.32, Department of Health and Human Services, page 335, DHHS: Medicaid Quarterly Fiscal Impact Statements.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Allen Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hamilton Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Clyburn Delleney Duncan Hagood Haley Hardwick Huggins Limehouse Lucas McGee Merrill Norman E. H. Pitts Sinclair G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Toole Umphlett
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 55. Part 1B, Section 8.41, Department of Health and Human Services, page 336, DHHS: Commission on Healthcare Access Recommendations.
Rep. HARRELL 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 Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Edge Funderburk Govan Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Sandifer Scott Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Vaughn Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Bailey Ballentine Bingham Brady Delleney Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Hardwick Harrison Huggins Kirsh Limehouse Lucas McGee Merrill Norman E. H. Pitts Scarborough Simrill Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Toole Umphlett Viers Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 56. Part 1B, Section 9.28, Department of Health and Environmental Control, page 341, DHEC: Beach Restoration Projects.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Allen Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Loftis Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Ballentine Bingham Delleney Duncan Haley Jefferson Kirsh Limehouse Lucas Norman Owens E. H. Pitts Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole White
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 57. Part 1B, Section 13.20, Department of Social Services, page 351, DSS: C.R. Neal Learning Center.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Allen Altman Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Davenport Delleney Emory Funderburk Govan Hagood Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Lee Littlejohn Loftis Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Rhoad Rivers Scott Sinclair Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Duncan Edge Frye Haley Hiott Huggins Limehouse Norman E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 58. Part 1B, Section 24.1, Department of Natural Resources, page 357, DNR: County Funds.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Allen Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland J. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Sinclair Skelton D. C. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Norman Stewart
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
I was away from my desk during the vote on Veto No. 58. I would have voted to override.
Rep. Nathan Ballentine
Veto 59. Part 1B, Section 24.2, Department of Natural Resources, page 358, DNR: County Game Funds/Equipment Purchase.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Allen Altman Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Govan Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Lee Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mahaffey Martin McCraw McLeod Miller J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice 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 Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Merrill Norman
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 60. Part 1B, Section 24.23, Department of Natural Resources, page 360, DNR: County Offices.
Rep. HARRELL 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:
Agnew Allen Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Breeland Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Delleney Edge Govan Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Loftis Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee Merrill Miller J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson Rice Rivers Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Skelton G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Taylor Thompson Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bingham Cobb-Hunter Duncan Emory Frye Funderburk Haley Huggins Kirsh Limehouse Lucas McLeod Norman E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad D. C. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Stewart Talley Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. J. E. SMITH 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 vetoes.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 24, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 75:
S. 75 (Word version) -- Senators Knotts, Hutto, O'Dell, Alexander, Cromer and Ford: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-11-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES, AND THE PRESUMPTION THAT HEART OR RESPIRATORY DISEASES OCCURRING IN FIREFIGHTERS AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CARDIAC-RELATED INCIDENT RESULTING IN IMPAIRMENT OR INJURY TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RESULTING IN TOTAL OR PARTIAL DISABILITY, OR DEATH, IS PRESUMED TO HAVE ARISEN OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 24, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 204:
S. 204 (Word version) -- Senator J. V. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-150-375 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN VISUAL OR HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS MAY RECEIVE STATE SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS TO ATTEND CERTAIN OUT-OF-STATE INSTITUTIONS.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 24, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 97:
S. 97 (Word version) -- Senators Land, Elliott and Ford: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 31-7-25 SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY AVAILABLE FOR REDEVELOPMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT FOR COUNTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-20, RELATING TO EXISTING FINDINGS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT, SO AS TO EXTEND EXISTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-30, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT, SO AS TO REVISE APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS TO EXTEND THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO MORE RURAL AREAS AND ADD ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS NECESSARY TO ASSIST SUCH RURAL AREAS; TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-80, RELATING TO THE FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ORDINANCE, SO AS TO REVISE THESE FINDINGS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-120, RELATING TO JOINTLY ADOPTED MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT PLANS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE COUNTIES JOINTLY BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A MULTI-COUNTY OR REGIONAL AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PROPERTY WHEN SUCH PROJECTS HAVE ECONOMIC IMPACT BEYOND A SINGLE COUNTY AND PROVIDE FOR ALL SUCH AUTHORITIES TO ACT BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AND ORDINANCES OF COUNTIES PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 24, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 268:
S. 268 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler and Cleary: 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, AND 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 PROVIDE THAT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, ALL LICENSED OPTOMETRISTS MUST BE LICENSED AS THERAPEUTICALLY-CERTIFIED OPTOMETRISTS, AND TO PROVIDE TRANSITION PROVISIONS.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 24, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 557:
S. 557 (Word version) -- Senator Richardson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-1-500, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS OF PRISONERS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY PENAL SYSTEM, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A MUNICIPALITY TO COVER PRISONERS WORKING FOR THE MUNICIPALITY.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received from the Senate:
Columbia, S.C., May 24, 2005
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Senators Alexander, Ryberg and Setzler of the Committee of Conference on the part of the Senate on S. 618:
S. 618 (Word version) -- Senators Alexander, Setzler, Short, Verdin and Knotts: A BILL TO ENACT THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PRESERVATION AND INVESTMENT REFORM ACT BY AMENDING SECTION 9-1-1790, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE EARNING LIMIT APPLICABLE TO RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM WHO RETURN TO COVERED EMPLOYMENT, SO AS TO REQUIRE THESE MEMBERS TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS; BY AMENDING SECTION 8-11-620, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LUMP SUM PAYMENTS FOR ANNUAL LEAVE FOR STATE EMPLOYEES, SO AS TO POSTPONE THIS LUMP SUM FOR TERI PARTICIPANTS UNTIL THE EMPLOYEE ENDS TERI PARTICIPATION; BY AMENDING SECTION 9-1-2210, RELATING TO THE TERI PROGRAM, SO AS TO REQUIRE TERI PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS, TO DELAY UNTIL A MEMBER ENDS PARTICIPATION THE INCLUSION OF THE APPLICABLE AMOUNT OF THE MEMBERS UNUSED ANNUAL LEAVE IN THE CALCULATION OF AVERAGE FINAL COMPENSATION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECALCULATION OF AVERAGE FINAL COMPENSATION WHEN THE MEMBER ENDS PARTICIPATION IN TERI FOR PURPOSES OF THE MEMBERS' FUTURE RETIREMENT BENEFITS OR OF A BENEFICIARY OF FUTURE BENEFITS ON THE DEATH OF A TERI PARTICIPANT WHO ELECTED A SURVIVOR OPTION, TO PROVIDE THAT A TERI PARTICIPANT UPON ENDING TERI PARTICIPATION MUST LEAVE COVERED EMPLOYMENT AND IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RETURN TO COVERED EMPLOYMENT WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT OR THE SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS; BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-1-490 AND 9-1-1520 SO AS TO ESTABLISH TWO CLASSES OF SERVICE FOR PERSONS BECOMING SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM MEMBERS AFTER 2005 AND PROVIDE A RETIREMENT OPTION FOR THESE PERSONS AT ANY AGE WITH TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF CREDITABLE SERVICE WITH A PENALTY FACTOR FOR THEIR EARLY RETIREMENT, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9-1-10, 9-1-1020, 9-1-1140, 9-1-1510, 9-1-1515, 9-1-1550, AND 9-1-1660, ALL AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, SERVICE CREDIT, RETIREMENT AND EARLY RETIREMENT, AND CALCULATION OF BENEFITS FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO CLOSE TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF CREDITABLE SERVICE RETIREMENT AT ANY AGE FOR PERSONS BEGINNING PARTICIPATION IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM AFTER 2005, TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS, TO DESIGNATE THOSE PERSONS "GRANDFATHERED" AS SCRS28 PARTICIPANTS, TO DESIGNATE PARTICIPANTS AFTER 2005 AS SCRS30 PARTICIPANTS AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR RETIREMENT QUALIFICATIONS, SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE ELECTION OF CLASS B SERVICE WITH A HIGHER MULTIPLIER, HIGHER EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS, AND PENALTY FOR RETIREMENT BEFORE THIRTY YEARS OF CREDITABLE SERVICE AND TO MAKE CONFORMING AMENDMENTS; BY AMENDING 9-1-1310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD AS TRUSTEE OF THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO CONFORM THIS REFERENCE TO THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMISSION ESTABLISHED IN THIS ACT AND ALLOW EQUITY INVESTMENTS AS PERMITTED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE; BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9-16-10, 9-16-80, AND 9-16-90, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, MEETINGS, AND REPORTING FOR PURPOSES OF INVESTMENTS OF RETIREMENT SYSTEM FUNDS BY THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, SO AS TO CONFORM THESE PROVISIONS TO THE ROLE OF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMISSION ESTABLISHED IN THIS ACT; BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 9 OF THE 1976 CODE, SO AS TO REVISE THE DUTIES OF THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS INVESTMENT PANEL, ESTABLISH THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMISSION AND PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERS, POWERS, AND DUTIES AS TRUSTEE OF THE ASSETS AND INVESTOR OF THE FUNDS OF THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, CONFORM THE INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS TO THE ROLE OF THIS COMMISSION INCLUDING THE VESTING IN IT OF ALL INVESTMENT AUTHORITY AND THE ELIMINATION OF A MAXIMUM LIMIT ON EQUITY INVESTMENTS AND ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR FIDUCIARIES; BY AMENDING SECTION 8-17-310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE STATE EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ACT, SO AS TO EXEMPT EMPLOYEES OF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMISSION; BY AMENDING SECTION 30-4-70, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO MEETINGS EXEMPT FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, SO AS TO CONFORM THE EXEMPTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, TO PROVIDE FOR AN ASSUMED INVESTMENT RETURN ON RETIREMENT SYSTEM ASSETS OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT PERCENT A YEAR, AND TO PROVIDE TRANSITION PROVISIONS.
Very respectfully,
President
Whereupon, the Chair appointed Reps. COOPER, KIRSH and YOUNG to the Committee of Conference on the part of the House and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. MERRILL moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn to meet at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.
Rep. MERRILL demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady R. Brown Cato Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Huggins Jennings Kirsh Leach Limehouse Loftis Martin McCraw McLeod Merrill Miller J. M. Neal Neilson Norman Parks Perry Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Sinclair Skelton G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Walker White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Allen Altman Branham Breeland J. Brown Ceips Clyburn Delleney Duncan Funderburk Govan Haskins M. Hines Howard Jefferson Kennedy Lee Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey McGee J. H. Neal Ott Owens Phillips E. H. Pitts Rhoad Scott Simrill G. M. Smith Vick Weeks
So, the motion to adjourn to meet at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow was agreed to.
Rep. LEACH, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 4152 (Word version) -- Rep. McLeod: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE I-26/SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 219 INTERCHANGE IN NEWBERRY COUNTY AS "MAIN STREET INTERCHANGE" BECAUSE THIS INTERCHANGE AS WELL AS SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 219 AND MAIN STREET SERVE AS THE GATEWAY TO THE CITY OF NEWBERRY AND TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ERECT APPROPRIATE SIGNS OR MARKERS REFLECTING THIS DESIGNATION.
On motion of Rep. MCLEOD, with unanimous consent, the following Concurrent Resolution was taken up for immediate consideration:
H. 4152 (Word version) -- Rep. McLeod: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE I-26/SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 219 INTERCHANGE IN NEWBERRY COUNTY AS "MAIN STREET INTERCHANGE" BECAUSE THIS INTERCHANGE AS WELL AS SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 219 AND MAIN STREET SERVE AS THE GATEWAY TO THE CITY OF NEWBERRY AND TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ERECT APPROPRIATE SIGNS OR MARKERS REFLECTING THIS DESIGNATION.
Whereas, the I-26/South Carolina Highway 219 Interchange as well as South Carolina Highway 219 and Main Street serve as the gateway to the City of Newberry for the motoring public; and
Whereas, within the corporate limits of the City of Newberry, South Carolina Highway 219 is designated as Main Street; and
Whereas, the corporate limits of the City of Newberry, during the fall of 2004, were enlarged to annex the area adjacent to the I-26/South Carolina Highway 219 Interchange; and
Whereas, the municipal government of the City of Newberry, by letter dated November 10, 2004, has requested that the I-26/South Carolina Highway 219 Interchange be named "Main Street Interchange"; and
Whereas, the City of Newberry, incorporated by act of the General Assembly in 1832, is the home of Newberry College, the Newberry Opera House, the historic Community Hall, and historic Oak Hall Mansion, the design of which is attributed to Robert Mills; and
Whereas, in recent years, the City of Newberry has experienced a renaissance and rebirth of commercial activity, economic development, and cultural attractions; and
Whereas, it is fitting and proper that the I-26/South Carolina Highway 219 Interchange be named "Main Street Interchange" inasmuch as this interchange as well as South Carolina Highway 219 and Main Street serve as the gateway to the City of Newberry. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the members of the General Assembly request the Department of Transportation to name the I-26/South Carolina Highway 219 Interchange in Newberry County as "Main Street Interchange" and to erect appropriate signs or markers reflecting this designation.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Mayor and City Council of the City of Newberry and to the Department of Transportation.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4173 (Word version) -- Rep. Hamilton: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE PLAYERS, COACHES, AND STAFF OF THE EASTSIDE HIGH SCHOOL "EAGLES" VARSITY BOYS SOCCER TEAM FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING SEASON OF SPIRITED COMPETITION AND TO CONGRATULATE THEM ON WINNING THE 2005 SOUTH CAROLINA CLASS AAA SOCCER STATE CHAMPIONSHIP.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4174 (Word version) -- Rep. Harrison: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE A. C. FLORA MEN'S TENNIS TEAM ON THEIR IMPRESSIVE CLASS AAA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP AND TO COMMEND THE PLAYERS AND THEIR COACH, JOE BAILEY, ON AN EXCEPTIONAL 15-0 SEASON.
The Resolution was adopted.
On motion of Rep. HARRISON, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:
H. 4175 (Word version) -- Rep. Harrison: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR TO THE PLAYERS, COACHES, AND SCHOOL OFFICIALS OF THE A. C. FLORA MEN'S TENNIS TEAM OF RICHLAND COUNTY, AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPEAKER, TO CONGRATULATE THEM ON THEIR IMPRESSIVE STATE AAA CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE AND TO HONOR THE PLAYERS AND THEIR COACH, JOE BAILEY, ON AN EXCEPTIONAL SEASON.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the members of the House of Representatives extend the privilege of the floor to the players, coaches, and school officials of the A. C. Flora Men's Tennis Team of Richland County, at a date and time to be determined by the Speaker, to congratulate them on their impressive State AAA Championship title and to honor the players and their coach, Joe Bailey, on an exceptional season.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4176 (Word version) -- Reps. Wilkins, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, 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, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND TRACY HAMILTON OF NORTH AUGUSTA, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE SPEAKER, FOR HER EXCELLENT SERVICE TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TO EXTEND TO HER BEST WISHES IN ALL HER FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
Whereas, Tracy Hamilton of North Augusta began her service to the House of Representatives in January of 2001 as a page; and
Whereas, she served as a page during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 legislative sessions before beginning full-time employment as Administrative Assistant to the Speaker; and
Whereas, her friendly and outgoing personality have made her a valuable asset to the Office of the Speaker, and she will be greatly missed by both the staff of the House and the members; and
Whereas, the beloved daughter of Benjamin and Deborah Hamilton, Ms. Hamilton is a 2003 graduate of the University of South Carolina. Her interest in politics and public affairs led her to pursue her Masters Degree in Public Administration from the University of South Carolina, which she completed in 2005; and
Whereas, Ms. Hamilton will be leaving her employment with the House on June 2, 2005, to begin an exciting new career with Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Columbia; and
Whereas, there is no doubt that she will use her time, talents, and considerable energy well in her new position and the House's loss is most certainly a tremendous gain for the Columbia community; and
Whereas, it is with great pride that the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives pause to recognize Tracy Hamilton's contributions to the running of the House during her tenure here and to join Speaker Wilkins in wishing her well. 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 Tracy Hamilton of North Augusta, Administrative Assistant to the Speaker, for her excellent service to the South Carolina House of Representatives and extend to her best wishes in all her future endeavors.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4177 (Word version) -- Reps. Haskins, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, 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, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AND HONORING LAURA BEAUVAIS-GODWIN FOR HER DEDICATION AND SERVICE ASSISTING COUPLES AND PLACING CHILDREN IN CARING HOMES THROUGH HER CAROLINA HOPE CHRISTIAN ADOPTION AGENCY, AND WISHING HER CONTINUED SUCCESS IN ALL HER FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4178 (Word version) -- Reps. R. Brown, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, 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, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY ASSOCIATION FOR ITS SIXTY YEARS OF SERVICE TO SOUTH CAROLINA AND THE NATION AND FOR ITS ENERGETIC AND CREATIVE RESPONSE TO THE CONTINUING NEEDS OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAYS OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4179 (Word version) -- Reps. McGee, Branham, Coates, M. Hines and J. Hines: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE DR. W. DEAN BANKS OF FLORENCE FOR HIS SERVICE AS 2004-2005 PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION, TO COMMEND DR. BANKS FOR TWICE BEING NAMED SOUTH CAROLINA CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE YEAR, AND TO CONGRATULATE HIM FOR BEING AWARDED THE ASSOCIATION'S PRESIDENT'S CUP AND PILLAR OF STRENGTH AWARD.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4180 (Word version) -- Reps. Merrill, Hinson, Dantzler and Umphlett: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE BISHOP ENGLAND HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS TRACK AND FIELD TEAM OF CHARLESTON ON ITS IMPRESSIVE CLASS AA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE AND TO HONOR THE PLAYERS AND THEIR COACHES ON ANOTHER EXTRAORDINARY SEASON.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4181 (Word version) -- Reps. Hayes and Jefferson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE PEE DEE INDIAN NATION OF UPPER SOUTH CAROLINA ON RECEIVING THE HIGH HONOR ON BEING RECOGNIZED AS A "TRIBE" BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION FOR MINORITY AFFAIRS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4182 (Word version) -- Reps. Hayes and Jefferson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE EASTERN CHEROKEE, SOUTHERN IROQUOIS, AND UNITED TRIBES OF SOUTH CAROLINA ON THE DISTINCTION OF THEIR RECOGNITION AS A "GROUP" BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION FOR MINORITY AFFAIRS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4183 (Word version) -- Reps. Hayes and Jefferson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE WACCAMAW INDIAN PEOPLE ON RECEIVING THE HIGH HONOR OF BEING RECOGNIZED AS A "TRIBE" BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION FOR MINORITY AFFAIRS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4184 (Word version) -- Reps. Hayes and Jefferson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE WASSAMASAW TRIBE OF VARNERTOWN INDIANS ON THE DISTINCTION OF ITS RECOGNITION AS A "GROUP" BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION FOR MINORITY AFFAIRS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4185 (Word version) -- Reps. Scott, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, 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, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND MS. MARCI ANDINO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTION COMMISSION, FOR ASSISTING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WITH THE DRAFTING AND ADOPTING OF LEGISLATION THAT COMPLIES WITH THE MANDATES OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS' HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT, AND TO MAKE SOUTH CAROLINA A NATIONAL LEADER IN THE AREAS OF VOTER REGISTRATION AND CONDUCTING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL ELECTIONS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4186 (Word version) -- Reps. Parks, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, 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, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AND HONORING MORRIS CHAPEL BAPTIST CHURCH OF GREENWOOD COUNTY ON THE JOYFUL OCCASION OF ITS ONE HUNDRED FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY, AND WISHING THE PASTOR AND CHURCH MEMBERS A BRIGHT FUTURE AND MANY MORE YEARS OF SUCCESS, HAPPINESS, AND ACHIEVEMENTS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4187 (Word version) -- Reps. G. Brown, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, 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, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE LEE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL LADY STALLIONS GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM OF LEE COUNTY ON ITS IMPRESSIVE STATE AA BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE AND TO HONOR ITS PLAYERS AND THEIR COACH, DOROTHY FORTUNE, ON ANOTHER EXTRAORDINARY SEASON.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 876 (Word version) -- Senator Setzler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO OFFER THE WARMEST CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HOWARD OSWALT OF BATESBURG ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR SIXTIETH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY AND TO EXTEND TO THEM AND THEIR FAMILY EVERY GOOD WISH FOR SUCCESS, HEALTH, AND CONTINUED HAPPINESS IN THE YEARS TO COME.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The following was taken up for immediate consideration:
S. 877 (Word version) -- Senator Setzler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO DECLARE THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 19-23, 2005 SOUTH CAROLINA BARBER WEEK ON THE OCCASION OF THE 2005 ANNUAL BARBER CONVENTION, AND TO RECOGNIZE ALL SOUTH CAROLINA BARBERS FOR THE OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS THEY MAKE TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES.
Whereas, barbers from around the nation will gather at the National Association of Barber Boards of America's seventy-ninth Annual Conference, held at South Carolina's own Baywatch Resort and Conference Center in North Myrtle Beach on September 19-23, 2005; and
Whereas, the South Carolina Board of Barber Examiners insures that consumers are protected in developing and promoting procedures for providing quality service; and
Whereas, the Board is also responsible for licensing all barbers, barbershops, barber colleges and instructors and for conducting examinations of barbers and instructors; and
Whereas, there are currently four thousand, two hundred and forty-one practicing barbers in South Carolina; and
Whereas, the time-honored tradition of the neighborhood barbershop continues to grow and prosper in the State; and
Whereas, it is with great pride that the Senate recognizes the remarkable difference the barbers of South Carolina have made in the lives of the countless patrons they have served. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the members of the South Carolina General Assembly, by this resolution, declare the week of September 19-23, 2005 South Carolina Barber Week on the occasion of the 2005 Annual Barber Convention and recognize all South Carolina barbers for the outstanding contributions they make to their individual communities.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the South Carolina Board of Barber Examiners.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 878 (Word version) -- Senator Peeler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE BRIDGE THAT CROSSES BIG THICKETY CREEK ALONG UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 29 IN CHEROKEE COUNTY THE "CARLISLE GUEST MEMORIAL BRIDGE" AND TO ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS BRIDGE THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "CARLISLE GUEST MEMORIAL BRIDGE".
The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 885 (Word version) -- Senator Jackson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR MRS. FRIEDA MITCHELL ON HER EIGHTIETH BIRTHDAY AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO HER FOR GOOD HEALTH AND HAPPINESS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:
H. 4188 (Word version) -- Reps. Townsend, Agnew, Cooper, Martin, Thompson and White: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-80, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN ANDERSON COUNTY, SO AS TO ADD AND REVISE CERTAIN VOTING PRECINCTS IN ANDERSON COUNTY, TO REDESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO CORRECT ARCHAIC LANGUAGE.
On motion of Rep. TOWNSEND, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
H. 4189 (Word version) -- Rep. Jennings: A BILL TO ENACT THE MARLBORO COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOND-PROPERTY TAX RELIEF ACT SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE IMPLEMENTATION, FOLLOWING REFERENDUM APPROVAL, OF A SALES AND USE TAX IN MARLBORO COUNTY NOT TO EXCEED ONE PERCENT FOR NOT MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FOR DEBT SERVICE ON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ISSUED FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION OR FOR DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION.
On motion of Rep. JENNINGS, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
H. 4190 (Word version) -- Rep. Leach: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-280, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN GREENVILLE COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE AND RENAME CERTAIN VOTING PRECINCTS OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, TO REDESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO CORRECT ARCHAIC LANGUAGE.
On motion of Rep. LEACH, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
H. 4191 (Word version) -- Reps. Neilson, Cotty, Battle, Cobb-Hunter, Emory, Hosey, Jefferson, Jennings, Leach, Littlejohn, Mahaffey, Owens, Parks, Phillips, Rhoad, Rice, Sinclair, J. R. Smith and Weeks: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 3 TO CHAPTER 38, TITLE 43 SO AS TO CREATE THE VOLUNTEER LONG TERM CARE ADVOCATE PROGRAM UNDER THE LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; TO ESTABLISH THE STRUCTURE OF THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM; TO PROVIDE FOR THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM; TO PROVIDE THAT A VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE MAY NOT SERVE UNTIL THE VOLUNTEER HAS UNDERGONE A CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK; TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT INITIALLY TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM FOR THREE YEARS IN LIMITED AREAS USING FUNDS FROM CIVIL PENALTIES; TO EXPAND THE PROGRAM AS FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE; TO PROVIDE IMMUNITY FOR NURSING HOMES FOR ACTS OF A VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE; AND TO DESIGNATE SECTIONS 43-38-10 THROUGH 43-38-60 AS ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 38, TITLE 43 AND TO NAME ARTICLE 1 "HEALTH FACILITY INVESTIGATIONS".
Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs
H. 4192 (Word version) -- Rep. Vick: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 4-12-30, 4-29-67, AND 12-44-30, ALL AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FEE-IN-LIEU OF PROPERTY TAX, SO AS TO LOWER THE MINIMUM INVESTMENT NECESSARY FOR A PROJECT IN A COUNTY DESIGNATED AS "DISTRESSED" FOR PURPOSES OF THE TARGETED JOBS TAX CREDIT TO ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means
H. 4193 (Word version) -- Rep. J. E. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING PART 4 TO CHAPTER 5, TITLE 37 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA CONSUMER CREDIT REPORT RIGHTS ACT" AND TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS, THE RELEASE OF A FREE WRITTEN OR ELECTRONIC DISCLOSURE COPY OF A CONSUMER'S CREDIT REPORT, WRITTEN NOTICE TO A CONSUMER OF HIS RIGHT TO REQUEST A REPORT, A TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR A DISCLOSURE REQUEST, AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS AND FOR FAILURE TO CORRECT INACCURACIES IN THE REPORT.
Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry
H. 4194 (Word version) -- Rep. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-130, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF HEALTH FACILITIES, SO AS TO DELETE THE DEFINITION OF "CHIROPRACTIC INPATIENT FACILITY", TO REVISE THE DEFINITIONS OF "HEALTH CARE FACILITY" AND "HOSPITAL", AND TO DEFINE "BIRTHING CENTER"; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-170, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF HEALTH FACILITIES, SO AS TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-260, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE OF HEALTH FACILITIES, SO AS TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 44-7-270 AND 44-7-280, BOTH RELATING TO HEALTH FACILITY LICENSURE, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO VARY LICENSURE PERIODS AND TO CHARGE AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT TO COVER THE COST OF FACILITY INSPECTIONS; TO ADD SECTION 44-7-295, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS AND COPY RECORDS OF HEALTH FACILITIES TO ASCERTAIN STATUTORY COMPLIANCE; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-315, RELATING TO INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHEN CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS OF HEALTH FACILITIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SUCH INSPECTIONS INCLUDE INSPECTIONS OF ACTIVITIES LICENSED BY THE DEPARTMENT, TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS, AND TO DELETE REFERENCES TO GROUP HOMES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-320, RELATING TO SANCTIONS THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY IMPOSE FOR VIOLATIONS OF HEALTH FACILITY LICENSURE AND REGULATION REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT TO BOTH SANCTION A LICENSEE AND TO IMPOSE A MONETARY PENALTY.
Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs
H. 4195 (Word version) -- Rep. Perry: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 100 TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MAY ISSUE "PARROT HEAD" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FEES COLLECTED FOR THESE SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA PARROT HEAD CLUB COUNCIL TO BE USED TO SUPPORT THE PALMETTO CHAPTER OF THE ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION AND THE UPSTATE SOUTH CAROLINA CHAPTER OF THE ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION.
Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works
Rep. SCOTT moved that the House do now adjourn, which was rejected by a division vote of 26 to 26.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 808 (Word version) -- Senators Patterson, Courson, Lourie and Jackson: A BILL TO DEVOLVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT THE MEMBERS OF THE RICHLAND COUNTY RECREATION COMMISSION FROM THE RICHLAND COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.
Rep. BRADY proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20546SD05), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding a new sentence at the end of SECTION 1 to read:
/The terms of the members of the commission appointed by the Richland County Legislative Delegation expire on June 30, 2005. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. BRADY explained the amendment.
Rep. SCOTT moved to table the amendment, which was not agreed to by a division vote of 2 to 7.
The amendment was then adopted.
The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill, as amended, on second reading.
Rep. J. E. SMITH demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Bales Ballentine Brady Cotty Howard J. H. Neal J. E. Smith
Those who voted in the negative are:
J. Brown Scott
So, the Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
Rep. SCOTT moved that the House do now adjourn, which was agreed to.
Rep. KENNEDY moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 14 was sustained and the motion was noted.
Rep. KENNEDY moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 15 was sustained and the motion was noted.
Rep. KENNEDY moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 16 was sustained and the motion was noted.
Rep. WITHERSPOON moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 23 was sustained and the motion was noted.
Rep. COTTY moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 46 was sustained and the motion was noted.
Rep. WHITE moved to reconsider the vote whereby H. 3591 (Word version) was given a second reading and the motion was noted.
The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:
H. 4149 (Word version) -- Rep. Rhoad: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE DENMARK-OLAR LADY VIKINGS TRACK AND FIELD TEAM OF DENMARK ON ITS STATE CLASS A CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE, AND TO HONOR THE TEAM MEMBERS AND THEIR COACH, WAYNE FARMER, ON AN EXCEPTIONAL SEASON.
H. 4151 (Word version) -- Reps. McLeod, J. Brown, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, 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, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO HONOR AND RECOGNIZE TRIANGLE CHILD CARE CENTER OF NEWBERRY COUNTY AND ITS FOUNDERS, CLYDE AND JESSIE GILLIAM HILL, FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING COMMITMENT TO LOVING, QUALITY CHILDCARE ON THE CENTER'S THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY, AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES FOR GROWTH AND CONTINUED SUCCESS IN THE COMING YEARS.
H. 4153 (Word version) -- Reps. Mahaffey, Talley and Sinclair: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE BYRNES HIGH SCHOOL LADY REBELS SOFTBALL TEAM OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY ON ITS IMPRESSIVE WIN OF THE STATE AAAA CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE PLAYERS AND THEIR COACH, DEBBIE HOLCOMBE, ON THEIR EXCEPTIONAL SEASON.
At 6:40 p.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. M. A. PITTS, adjourned in memory of Staff Sgt. William "Bill" Ginn, to meet at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 9:56 A.M.