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 Psalm 104:30: "When you send your spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth."
Let us pray. Almighty God, continue to protect, guide, and govern Your creation. We give thanks for giving these present the ability to be Representatives to the people of this State. Give these whom You have chosen the ability to be all they can be as Representatives and staff. Look in favor upon our Nation, President, State, Governor, Speaker, staff and all who serve in government and private enterprise. Bless our defenders of freedom at home and abroad as they protect us. In Your holy name we pray. Amen.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.
After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, June 7, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
At 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 12, the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Acts were duly ratified:
(R151, S. 310 (Word version)) -- Senators Hayes, Setzler and Gregory: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO PHASE-IN AN EXEMPTION FOR THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF SALES OR SALES PRICE OF DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND RELATED SUPPLIES PAID FOR DIRECTLY BY THE MEDICAID OR MEDICARE PROGRAM UNDER REGULATIONS PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF SALES TAXES ON THESE ITEMS WHEN SOLD BY A PROVIDER WITH A SOUTH CAROLINA RETAIL LICENSE WHOSE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO
(R152, S. 327 (Word version)) -- Senator Sheheen: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-5-10, 7-5-35, AND 7-13-70, ALL AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF REGISTRATION AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ELECTION AND THE COMPOSITIONS OF THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT THE CERTIFICATION BE ISSUED WHEN A MEMBER OR DESIGNATED STAFF PERSON HAS COMPLETED A TRAINING PROGRAM, PROVIDE FOR TRAINING OF THESE MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE HAD A BREAK IN SERVICE OR EMPLOYMENT, AND TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNOR TO REMOVE A MEMBER OF THESE BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS, APPOINTED ON OR AFTER THE ACT'S EFFECTIVE DATE, WHO HAS NOT FULFILLED THE TRAINING REQUIREMENT WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS.
(R153, S. 370 (Word version)) -- Senators Gregory, Vaughn and Knotts: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER, SO AS TO ADD ARSON IN THE FIRST DEGREE TO THE LIST OF CRIMES INCLUDED IN THE STATUTORY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PURPOSES OF THE DEATH PENALTY.
(R154, S. 446 (Word version)) -- Senators Malloy, McConnell, Ford, Rankin, Knotts, Cleary, Anderson, Vaughn, Hawkins, Scott, Williams, Drummond, Mescher, Thomas, Short, Hutto, Leatherman, Richardson, Leventis, Elliott, Patterson, Pinckney, Land, Lourie, Jackson, Peeler, Sheheen, Moore and McGill: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE "INDIGENT DEFENSE ACT" BY ADDING SECTION 17-3-5 SO AS TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS FOR PURPOSES OF THE CHAPTER; BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 17 SO AS TO ESTABLISH CIRCUIT PUBLIC DEFENDER SELECTION PANELS, PROVIDE FOR THEIR MEMBERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE APPOINTMENT OF CIRCUIT PUBLIC DEFENDERS, PROVIDE ELIGIBILITY
(R155, S. 726 (Word version)) -- Senators Grooms, McGill, Rankin, Cleary, Reese, Bryant, Alexander, O'Dell, Verdin, Ford, Williams, McConnell, Short, Knotts, Land, Setzler, Malloy, Leatherman, Jackson, Hayes, Scott, Peeler, Sheheen, Thomas, Ryberg, Patterson, Vaughn, Fair, Hutto, Pinckney, Gregory, Moore, Anderson, Drummond, Hawkins, Campsen, Courson, Cromer, Matthews, Ritchie and Martin: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 29, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUBJECTS OF
(R156, S. 213 (Word version)) -- Senators Lourie, Hayes, Fair, Setzler, Courson, Vaughn, Cromer, Leatherman, McGill, Knotts, Alexander and Williams: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ENACTING THE "PREVENTION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING AND ACCESS TO ALCOHOL ACT OF 2007" SO AS TO ADD ARTICLE 19 TO CHAPTER 4, TITLE 61 TO REQUIRE THE REGISTRATION OF KEGS, TO DEFINE TERMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ARTICLE, TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF KEGS, AND TO PROVIDE FINES FOR VIOLATIONS; BY ADDING SECTION 61-6-4075 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGAL PURCHASE OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS FOR ANOTHER'S CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY; BY ADDING SECTION 61-6-4085 SO AS TO REQUIRE CRIMINAL CHARGES TO BE BROUGHT AGAINST BOTH THE SELLER AND PURCHASER REGARDING THE ILLEGAL SALE OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS TO MINORS AND TO CREATE AN EXCEPTION FOR THE USE OF MINORS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-7-8920 AND 20-7-8925, BOTH AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF BEER, WINE, AND ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS, SO AS TO EQUALIZE THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSES, TO REQUIRE THAT THE VIOLATOR COMPLETE AN ALCOHOL EDUCATION
(R157, H. 3249 (Word version)) -- Reps. Scarborough, Umphlett and McLeod: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-110, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AGENCY PROCEDURES FOR PROMULGATING REGULATIONS, SO AS TO INCLUDE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED FOR
(R158, H. 3254 (Word version)) -- Reps. Clyburn, Neilson, Whipper, W.D. Smith, Anderson, Bales, Breeland, R. Brown, Cobb-Hunter, Cooper, Dantzler, Delleney, Harrison, Hayes, Hosey, Howard, Jennings, Limehouse, Mack, Merrill, J.H. Neal, Ott, Owens, Rutherford, Scarborough, Sellers, Umphlett, Viers, Walker and Bedingfield: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-18-1600 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A SCHOOL THAT HAS RECEIVED AN UNSATISFACTORY
(R159, H. 3304 (Word version)) -- Reps. J.M. Neal, McLeod, Branham, Chalk, Frye, Gambrell, Littlejohn, Lucas, Mulvaney, Neilson, Rice, Spires, Viers and Agnew: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 44-61-80, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO ALSO REQUIRE AN APPLICANT FOR CERTIFICATION, OR RECERTIFICATION, TO UNDERGO A CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-620, RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR TAKING DNA SAMPLES FROM PERSONS AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES, SO AS TO DELETE THESE PROVISIONS AND TO REQUIRE DNA SAMPLES TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING ARREST OR INDICTMENT FOR CERTAIN FELONIES; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-630, RELATING TO MEDICAL PERSONNEL TAKING DNA SAMPLES, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT MEDICAL PERSONNEL MUST TAKE DNA SAMPLES AND TO PROVIDE THAT AN APPROPRIATELY TRAINED PERSON MAY TAKE SUCH SAMPLES; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-650, RELATING TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY, STORAGE, AND RELEASE OF DNA SAMPLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES TO PREVENT TAKING DUPLICATE DNA SAMPLES; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-660, RELATING TO EXPUNGEMENT OF DNA RECORDS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE EXPUNGEMENT WHEN CHARGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED AND TO PROVIDE THAT NO COSTS FOR EXPUNGEMENT MAY BE CHARGED TO THE PERSON SEEKING EXPUNGEMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-670, RELATING TO THE DNA SAMPLE PROCESSING FEE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SUCH FEE MUST BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PERSON AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING; AND TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-120, RELATING TO FINGERPRINTING PERSONS WHO ARE ARRESTED, SO AS TO FURTHER SPECIFY THAT
(R160, H. 3373 (Word version)) -- Reps. M.A. Pitts and Duncan: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 44-55-822, 44-55-825, AND 44-55-827 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO ISSUE A PRELIMINARY TRACT EVALUATION AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL LETTER FOR PURPOSES OF AN ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, TO PROVIDE THE CRITERIA FOR THESE ACTIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT A FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL LETTER FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION MAY BE ISSUED AFTER THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONDUCTED A SOIL SUITABILITY TEST ON EACH LOT, AND PROVIDE THE CRITERIA FOR THESE INDIVIDUAL TESTS, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT TO NOTIFY A LOT OWNER IF CORRECTIVE MEASURES ARE POSSIBLE FOLLOWING DENIAL OF A PERMIT, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT RANDOM FINAL INSPECTIONS OF A MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF ANNUALLY INSTALLED SYSTEMS AND PROVIDE SYSTEMS NOT INSPECTED ARE DEEMED APPROVED, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF A PERMIT, AND TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS FOR LICENSING OF PERSONS WHO CONTRACT OR ADVERTISE TO OFFER INSTALLATION, REPAIR, MODIFICATION, AND APPROVAL OF ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS, AND BY ADDING SECTION 44-1-290 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CORPORATION OR PERSON WHO PROVIDES TREATED EFFLUENT FOR IRRIGATION IS NOT CONSIDERED A PUBLIC UTILITY IF THE EFFLUENT HAS NOT BEEN PERMITTED FOR CONSUMPTION.
(R161, H. 3457 (Word version)) -- Reps. Mack, Breeland, R. Brown, Hosey, Limehouse and Stavrinakis: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 61-4-590, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF PERMITS AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF BEER OR WINE, SO AS TO REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE LICENSEE AND AN
(R162, H. 4164 (Word version)) -- Reps. Bowers and Brantley: AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND VOTER REGISTRATION OF HAMPTON COUNTY AND PROVIDE FOR THE NUMBER AND MANNER OF APPOINTMENT OF ITS MEMBERS, TERMS, FILLING OF VACANCIES, ELECTION OF THE BOARD'S CHAIRMAN, THE CHAIRMAN'S TERM OF OFFICE, AND RELATED MATTERS; TO ABOLISH THE HAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF VOTER REGISTRATION AND DEVOLVE ITS FUNCTIONS, DUTIES, AND POWERS UPON THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND VOTER REGISTRATION OF HAMPTON COUNTY; TO ABOLISH THE HAMPTON COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION AND DEVOLVE ITS FUNCTIONS, DUTIES, AND POWERS UPON THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND VOTER REGISTRATION OF HAMPTON COUNTY; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT TERMS OF OFFICE FOR CERTAIN PERSONS.
The Charleston Delegation moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Rodney Bradford "Brad" Baity, Theodore Michael "Mike" Benke, Melven E. Champaign, James "Earl" Drayton, Michael J. French, William "Billy" Hutchinson, Mark W. Kelsey, Louis M. Mulkey and Brandon K. Thompson, the nine Charleston firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty, which was agreed to.
The House stood in silent prayer for the families of the nine Charleston firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty.
Rep. LEACH, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 4258 (Word version) -- Reps. Witherspoon, Barfield, Clemmons, Edge, Leach and Hardwick: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF THE STATE FARM TO MARKET ROAD #31 IN HORRY COUNTY, FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 905 TO THE TOWN OF LORIS, THE "SERGEANT HENRY ODELL STALVEY, JR., MEMORIAL ROAD" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ALONG THIS ROAD THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "SERGEANT HENRY ODELL STALVEY, JR., MEMORIAL ROAD".
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
The following was introduced:
H. 4264 (Word version) -- Rep. G. Brown: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE MRS. CHRISTINE SHIRLEY OF LEE COUNTY ON THE OCCASION OF HER NINETIETH BIRTHDAY, AND TO WISH HER A JOYOUS BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION AND MANY MORE YEARS OF HEALTH AND HAPPINESS.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4265 (Word version) -- Reps. Hart, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hinson, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4266 (Word version) -- Rep. Frye: A HOUSE RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE W. M. GENTRY FAMILY AND GENTRY'S POULTRY COMPANY FOR THEIR COMMITMENT AND DEDICATION TO THE TOWN OF SALUDA AND TO SALUDA COUNTY, AND TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION FOR THE BEAUTIFUL TOWN CLOCK DONATED TO THE COMMUNITY BY GENTRY'S.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4267 (Word version) -- Reps. Howard, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hinson, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss,
Whereas, the Honorable Gilda Cobb-Hunter is a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, District 66, Orangeburg County; and
Whereas, the University's Board of Trustees awarded her the Doctor of Humane Letters at the May 18, 2007, commencement exercises at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston; and
Whereas, her citation was read by H. Del Schutte, Jr., M.D., MUSC Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, in recognition of her many contributions to humanity; and
Whereas, Representative Cobb-Hunter, first elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1992, was the first African-American woman from Orangeburg to be elected to statewide office; and
Whereas, she became the first freshman representative to be appointed to the House Ways and Means Committee, on which she still serves; and
Whereas, she was elected House Minority leader from 1997-2000 and has served with distinction on the House Legislative Subcommittee on Economic Development, Capital Improvement and Other Taxes, the Joint Bond Review Committee, and the House Budget Subcommittee on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice; and
Whereas, a graduate of Florida A&M University, with a master's degree from Florida State University, Representative Cobb-Hunter is a licensed Master Social Worker, practicing in Orangeburg; and during her career, she has played leadership roles in addressing healthcare disparities, issues relevant to Native Americans, diversity, environmental responsibility, and domestic violence; and
Whereas, she is active in her local community, serving as Executive Director of CASA/Family Systems, a family violence agency, and serves on many community boards; and
Whereas, Representative Cobb-Hunter is a passionate advocate for numerous healthcare initiatives, and her recent leadership role in the House's recommended passage of a significant increase in cigarette tax did not go unnoticed or unappreciated by the medical community. 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, congratulate our honorable colleague, Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter of Orangeburg County, on her recent recognition by the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston as a recipient of an MUSC Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters at the May 2007 commencement services.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4268 (Word version) -- Rep. Moss: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND MRS. NANCY K. PERRY OF LEXINGTON COUNTY FOR HER EXCELLENCE AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHILDREN'S HOME AND FAMILY SERVICES, AND TO EXPRESS THE GRATITUDE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4269 (Word version) -- Rep. Huggins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE C. L. "DUCK" AND SALLY KINARD OF LEXINGTON COUNTY ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR FIFTIETH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES FOR MANY MORE YEARS OF BLESSING AND FULFILLMENT.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4270 (Word version) -- Rep. Vick: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE PROFOUND SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY UPON THE DEATH OF MRS. MARTHA ELIZABETH CHAMBERS MELTON KOLLOCK OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AND TO EXTEND THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HER FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland
G. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Walker Weeks White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Tuesday, June 19.
Jackson "Seth" Whipper Patsy Knight Thad Viers James Lucas
Jeffrey D. Duncan Fletcher Smith Converse Chellis
The SPEAKER granted Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE a leave of absence for the week due to illness.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. PHILLIPS a leave of absence for the week due to illness.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. W. D. SMITH a leave of absence for the week.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. HINSON a leave of absence for the day due to a primary election.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. MITCHELL a leave of absence for the day.
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. 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. 3642 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
06/19/07 YOUNG
The SPEAKER announced that Rep. TALLEY replaced Rep. W. D. SMITH on the Conference Committee on the following Bill:
H. 3749 (Word version) -- Reps. W. D. Smith, Mitchell, Kelly, Littlejohn, Mahaffey, Moss, Phillips, Talley and Walker: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-10-80, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JOB DEVELOPMENT CREDITS, SO AS TO ALLOW A TAXPAYER WHO QUALIFIES FOR THE JOB DEVELOPMENT CREDIT AND WHO IS LOCATED IN A MULTI-COUNTY BUSINESS OR INDUSTRIAL PARK TO RECEIVE A CREDIT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT DESIGNATED TO THE COUNTY WITH THE LOWEST DEVELOPMENT STATUS OF THE COUNTIES CONTAINING THE PARK IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
June 14, 2007
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval H. 3034 (Word version), R. 123.
This proposed legislation would require that new state construction above $12 million in size, and all state renovation projects of 50 percent of the building or more, adhere to either the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System or the Green Globes Rating System for construction.
I applaud the intent of this legislation because this administration has been committed to our state's environment and maintaining the quality of life here in South Carolina. We have been equally committed to the issue of fuel efficiency and exploring ways to decrease the demand on fossil fuels as witnessed most recently in the formation of a climate change stakeholders panel.
In all this, though, we believe that allowing individuals to exercise judgment and discretion is key to finding solutions that work. We believe this marketplace of different ideas and approaches by institutions, businesses and individuals is superior to simply mandating ideas from government. We have practiced this approach most recently when I announced the Climate, Energy, and Commerce Advisory Committee. Its main charge is to look at the issue of climate change and make market-based policy recommendations to address this increasingly serious issue.
Our view is that we need to avoid mandates wherever possible. We believe that we should certainly encourage the types of construction contemplated in this legislation but ultimately leave the decision to the institution or governmental entity in question. To do otherwise is to mandate raising the cost of government or education in circumstances that may not warrant the mandate.
Let me add two other conflicting elements of this Bill. In some ways, it seems this Bill simply allows what is already happening in regard to these types of construction. Many institutions in South Carolina are building in accordance with these standards, and given the waiver provision, I am not sure how many more would do so. Specifically, the Bill would leave to the discretion of the State Engineers Office (SEO) whether or not any project would be economically feasible, and would give SEO officials the power to waive this mandate at its discretion. The up-front investment can often be so great that virtually any project could be deemed not economically feasible.
In the event the State Engineer took a more rigid perspective, it could involve considerable cost. According to a number of commercial construction folks I have spoken to, this mandate, if adhered to strictly, could increase the cost of constructing new buildings by 10 to 40 percent. The payback on these types of investments is very much driven by time of use. Many governmental buildings are not used in the night and evening hours, and we believe the governmental entity most immediately tied to the building to be in the best position to know the trade off in up-front cost and return.
Again, this legislation is well-intended. However, I think the Bill is flawed to the point that we should stop and look at a wider variety of options for energy conservation.
For these reasons, I have vetoed H. 3034, R. 123.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
Received as information.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
June 14, 2007
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval H. 3045 (Word version), R. 124.
This Bill establishes a firefighter grants program that would award grants to volunteer and combination fire departments. The grants would be administered by the State Fire Marshal in conjunction with a peer review council.
I admire the intent of those who have worked on this legislation so much that this Bill was one of the two most difficult Bills this year for me and this administration on which to reach resolution. I narrowly came down on the side of the veto, not because of its proponents in the firefighting community's intent nor because of the caliber of leadership currently at place in those same circles. In fact, I've grown to personally admire their commitment, not only to firefighting, but to making a difference in people's lives here in South Carolina. I also struggled with this legislation because of the very real sacrifices and personal commitment of thousands of volunteer and paid firefighters across the State.
I cannot say enough good things about the competitive process that was created in this legislation. It falls in stark contrast to many of the non-competitive and highly political processes that now befall
Additionally, I think this legislation worked to close some of the gaps that exist between big and small fire services because of the discrepancies in what big services have available to them. In this light, it also closes gaps between rural and urban South Carolina that see the same funding gaps. Finally, these grants would have worked to complement a great area of volunteerism that is alive and well in our State in the volunteer fire departments. Uplifting and supporting people who give of their time to help others is important to the fabric of our State and the quality of life afforded in South Carolina.
So ultimately I came down on the side of vetoing this Bill not because of its merits, but simply because I believe that if there was ever a year not to be adding a new governmental program, this year is it. In Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, there was an article entitled, "Do Georgia's Small Builders Signal a Dangerous Trend?" It went on to recount how construction loan delinquencies and building foreclosures seem to be spreading beyond the arguably overbuilt markets of Florida, Arizona or California. It fits with other things that I have read that seem to suggest the national economy is on its way toward cooling. If my hunch is correct here, I do not think we would want to start and then stop with programs as important as firefighting and its insurance are to people's lives.
Waiting, in this instance, would allow proponents of this legislation to cure the one component I did find lacking - no local match. Government often spends much more than it should because seemingly every need is every government's job - rather than specific needs being assigned to different areas or levels of government. It has been this administration's view that services like water and sewer, or police or fire protection, are fundamentally tied to local areas of government rather than federal or state government. Admittedly, September 11th has blurred and changed many of these lines, but the basic truth still holds that we should not look to Washington for the administration of local garbage pick-up or police protection. Accordingly, we believe a local match is important in further vesting a local community in spending decisions.
Without a local match, the misperception of "free money" often takes hold, and what we have seen in the so-called Competitive Grants Program is that the availability of "free money" unleashes a demand that otherwise does not exist. Since the creation of the Competitive Grants Program, which has no local match requirement, there have
Again, I applaud the sponsors of this legislation for working carefully to put protections in place for the taxpayers and to depoliticize this program. However, for the reasons described, I am, unfortunately, compelled to veto this legislation.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
Received as information.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
December 17, 2007
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval H. 3239 (Word version), R. 128.
This legislation permits the South Carolina Employment Security Commission to use federal funding to acquire land in Spartanburg County to replace two existing buildings with a new facility.
A long held belief of this administration is that we should run government more like a business, making decisions that focus on the bottom line and doing all we can to improve the quality of the services we provide our clients. From this perspective, H. 3239 falls short on two counts.
First, H. 3239 represents activities that focus more on administration at the expense of getting people back to work, the core mission of the Employment Security Commission. If enacted, H. 3239 provides for the Employment Security Commission to use $500,000 in federal funds through the Reed Act to acquire land for a new building. Currently, the two Employment Security Commission Spartanburg offices combined contain 10,000 square feet of office and frontline service space. The
Based on internal OneStop usage reports for the Spartanburg County Employment Security Commission offices, there is not a projected increase in traffic consistent with the plans for this building. Furthermore, the unemployment rate for the Upstate region served by these facilities has declined from 8.3 percent in the Spring of 2006 to 5.9 percent in April 2007.
During more prosperous periods in which we have declining unemployment rates, it's tempting to use cash reserves to fund activities that are only marginally tied to improving the effectiveness of the unemployment services provided in the Upstate Workforce Investment Act region. However, this approach can prove short-sighted when the economy quiets and those dollars are needed to provide services to the unemployed.
The funds used in H. 3239 represent a much larger building campaign through which the Employment Security Commission is building new facilities across the State drawing down funds from a federal disbursement provided to shore up the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. Since the 2002 disbursement of $110 million, more than 11 percent of the state's Reed Act cash account has been committed to buildings that have been completed or are on the drawing board.
Second, H. 3239 encourages the Employment Security Commission to continue offering service based on a 20th Century model that is rapidly becoming less relevant in the 21st Century economy. At a time when more and more services can be offered online, the Employment Security Commission is building in anticipation of the continued use of a centralized approach. Lost in this approach is the opportunity to leverage both new technology, other governmental agencies and the growing list of private sector providers that can offer most, if not all of the services the Employment Security Commission performs.
In this regard, H. 3239 discourages three governmental entities - the Department of Commerce, the Technical and Comprehensive Education system and the Employment Security Commission - from combining the use of the federal, state and local funds they receive to streamline funding in a more targeted effort to better serve their shared client base. Within minutes of the current Employment Security
Furthermore, this is an example of the need for better coordination of workforce programs in this State into a single, accountable agency. Much like the Department of Transportation, the Employment Security Commission does not have a direct line of accountability back to the people. Like DOT Commissioners, Employment Security Commissioners are elected to terms by the General Assembly and, thereby, are insulated from the voting public. That 11 percent of Reed Act funds that is going toward a building campaign should be cause for concern by the members of the General Assembly who put these commissioners in office. This administration has advocated for a more unified and accountable workforce plan to be implemented that would reduce unnecessary administration such as this and dedicate more of those dollars back to the core mission of putting people to work.
For these reasons, I am vetoing H. 3239, R.128.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
Received as information.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
June 14, 2007
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval H. 4178 (Word version), R. 150.
This Bill is a Joint Resolution requiring the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to establish a Medicaid Transportation Advisory Committee to resolve beneficiary transportation issues and complaints. Though well-intentioned, I respectfully submit this Bill is a duplication of existing efforts and
I say this because this Joint Resolution mirrors efforts already being instituted by DHHS. Part of the newly established transportation contract stipulates that transportation brokers must establish an "advisory committee" in each region served under the contract. Since there are six regions, there will be six advisory committees addressing similar Medicaid transportation issues.
Similar to the Joint Resolution, these six committees will consist of representatives from an adult day health care facility, dialysis center, hospital or other medical service providers, transportation providers and the beneficiary community. Quarterly meeting minutes are to be forwarded to the department including a report noting patterns and trends. Having six regional committees allows for more diversity and participation from interested parties. With this Joint Resolution, many of the same entities may be represented on a regional, as well as on a statewide committee, causing unneeded confusion and a duplication of efforts. In addition, the contract requires the Broker to establish the six regional advisory committees at the Broker's expense - this Joint Resolution requires the State to bear the cost associated with establishing yet another advisory committee.
So, the bottom line is that I am vetoing this Bill because I believe it duplicates existing efforts and, therefore, needlessly makes an additional claim on the taxpayers' wallet. To better understand the existing system, let me give you a little greater background.
As an additional tool to fight waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid system, DHHS competitively awarded contracts with two companies to serve as "transportation brokers" to increase efficiencies in the system and to provide more oversight of billing. This concept is not at all new. In fact, more than 20 other states have implemented the same type of oversight within their respective systems. Right now, Medical Transportation Management (MTM) will operate in two regions and LogistiCare in the other four regions. The contract was established for three years with two one-year options to extend if we are satisfied with the service provided. Both companies began negotiating with many of the same transportation entities that were already providing services to reduce problems that would result from the transition.
For the record, the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services has begun a review of its programs to determine ways to provide greater efficiency and integrity. It is estimated that approximately $270 million is lost to waste, fraud and abuse each year
Below is a sample of the things we uncovered in that investigation:
Investigations: DHHS is currently investigating or has recently closed cases on 11 ambulance providers. Of the 141 Medicaid ambulance providers, these 11 accounted for more than half of total non-emergency billings in Fiscal Year 2006, or about $8.9 million.
In one case, the head of Northern Anderson County EMS pleaded guilty to Medicaid fraud for padding mileage and inappropriately billing Medicaid for more expensive transports than were actually warranted. He was required to reimburse $463,000 in fraudulent claims.
Complaints: Numerous complaints and allegations of fraud and abuse against transportation companies have come directly from beneficiaries. For example, providers improperly sent ambulances (allowing for higher reimbursement) instead of vans to transport beneficiaries. In some cases, patients were observed sitting in the front seat of the ambulance during the rides.
False records: Before DHHS utilized the new broker system, the only assurance the department had that an ambulance transport in a non-emergency situation was medically justified was through a specific form. The Program Integrity Group at DHHS found numerous examples of these forms being copied and used for more than one patient, of physician signatures being forged and of mileage not being properly recorded.
Improper billing: DHHS found cases of medical providers refusing to sign transport justification forms. However, Medicaid was ultimately billed for the trip.
Excessive transports: Many billings for Medicaid recipients appeared excessive or unwarranted. For example, a non-emergency ambulance provider in 2006 billed Medicaid for transporting one patient on hundreds of separate trips totaling $22,000.
Unaccountable drivers: In December 2006, a citizen reported to authorities a Medicaid transportation driver using a state-authorized vehicle during work hours to buy alcohol at a liquor store. Two other drivers were observed shopping at flea markets during work hours, again using a state vehicle. Another driver was observed sharing his gasoline account card with friends at a gas station.
As a result, the new transportation broker accountability program began on May 1, 2007, and has had an immediate impact on operations. These positive changes should be noted. During the first week, DHHS received numerous reports from the new broker call centers of people trying to schedule inappropriate rides that previously were being provided - and billed to Medicaid - under the old system. One Upstate transportation company saw its volume of non-ambulance transports approximately double from about 225 trips to 460 trips per day. This was largely attributed to a high volume of improper ambulance transports prior to the broker system. Under the new broker system, these transports are being automatically assigned to more appropriate modes of transportation, ultimately saving taxpayers funding.
We welcome oversight of the program and its implementation. If the sponsors of this legislation would like to do their due diligence as members of the House and perform oversight in the next legislative session, we will work to provide all of the data necessary to assist. However, I do not believe that we need to duplicate an effort already being performed under the terms of the contract at the expense of the broker. It will only serve to, I believe, slow down efforts to root out waste, fraud and abuse.
For these reasons, I am vetoing H. 4178, R. 150.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
Received as information.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
June 18, 2007
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am vetoing and returning without my approval H. 4164 (Word version), R. 162.
This veto is based on my belief that this Bill is unconstitutional. H. 4164, R. 162, proposes to abolish the Hampton County Board of
Such acts are in violation of Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, which provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to H. 4164, R. 162, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7.
For this reason, I am vetoing and returning H. 4164, R. 162, to you without my signature.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
Received as information.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
June 18, 2007
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval H. 3304 (Word version), R. 159.
I admire and appreciate what our law enforcement does on a daily basis. In their work, there is always a balance between the civil liberties unique to our culture and enhancements that would allow them greater odds in catching those who perpetrate crimes on the populace at large. While certainly enhancing law enforcement's ability to do their noble work, I believe this Bill takes too big a bite from the foundation of civil liberty and privacy that are the hallmark of the American way of life.
Allow me to explain. Currently law enforcement collects fingerprints for investigative purposes because fingerprints are identity factors and nothing more. They contain no personal information. A DNA sample, by contrast, contains a great deal of sensitive personal information.
To date, we have put safeguards on government's access to this personal information. Law enforcement currently has the authority to collect a DNA sample from an accused for comparison purposes - but only after a court order has been sought and granted. We believe this is a reasonable standard.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that all people shall be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fourth Amendment is intended to establish a perimeter of personal integrity into which the government cannot intrude absent compelling reason. DNA databases would move the threshold in analyzing personal information from criminal investigation to surveillance - and given the personal nature of DNA material, we don't believe this is warranted without a court order as law now dictates.
Federal courts have, in fact, found that attaining a biological sample for DNA analysis can be considered a "search" under the Fourth Amendment - meaning there has to be a warrant. Custodial arrests, however, do not require warrants, so permitting law enforcement to attain DNA samples during warrantless arrests, therefore, stretches the boundaries of being constitutional.
Though American society values personal liberties, we are the first to recognize that persons convicted of a crime must give up some of those liberties, including the protection against search and seizure. By limiting DNA collection to those who have been convicted of a crime, we ensure that no DNA is collected unless that person has been granted due process of rights and has experienced a full vetting by the judicial system. If DNA collection were expanded to include custodial arrest for felonies, why stop there? Law enforcement could inevitably stop other crimes as well with an even further expanded database. We think the clear divide created with conviction has served us well because one of the central tenets of American law is that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
This legal right applies to everyone - even those who have been convicted of wrongdoing in the past. What makes this Bill even more troubling is that, although many charges are dropped and many people charged are proven not guilty, the DNA specimens would not be automatically destroyed - and procedures for removal are predicated on the accused taking action.
Finally, custodial arrest is not a particularly strong standard. Innocent people are sometimes wrongfully arrested. If one believes that knowledge is power then without limiting DNA collection to those who have been convicted - not simply charged - we confer an awesome power to government given the personal information government would now house.
We believe expanding the DNA database according to H. 3304 represents an overreach by government and an erosion of personal liberty.
For these reasons, I am vetoing H. 3304, R. 159.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
Received as information.
The following Bill was taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
S. 816 (Word version) -- Senator Malloy: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT EACH MEMBER OF THE DARLINGTON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SHALL BE ALLOWED AND PAID FROM DARLINGTON COUNTY "C" FUND REVENUES SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS FOR EACH MEETING AT WHICH HE IS IN ATTENDANCE, TO PROVIDE THAT THE COMMITTEE SHALL RECEIVE THE PAYMENT AUTHORIZED IN THIS ACT UPON ISSUANCE OF APPROVED VOUCHERS BY THE COMMITTEE'S CHAIRMAN, EXCEPT THAT THE CHAIRMAN MAY NOT APPROVE VOUCHERS IN ANY SINGLE FISCAL YEAR WHICH VOUCHERS AUTHORIZE PAYMENT FOR MORE THAN FIFTEEN MEETINGS PER FISCAL YEAR FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DARLINGTON COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION SHALL BE AN EX OFFICIO NONVOTING MEMBER OF THE DARLINGTON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
Rep. SHOOPMAN asked unanimous consent to recall H. 3077 (Word version) from the Committee on Judiciary.
Rep. HASKINS objected.
Rep. HART asked unanimous consent to recall H. 3448 (Word version) from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
Rep. SCARBOROUGH objected.
On motion of Rep. WITHERSPOON, with unanimous consent, the following Joint Resolution was ordered recalled from the Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs:
S. 729 (Word version) -- Senator Cleary: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PLACE IN MURRELLS INLET AT LEAST EIGHT BUOYS THAT ESTABLISH A NO WAKE ZONE WITHIN FIFTY FEET OF A DOCK.
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R63) S. 603 (Word version) -- Senators Grooms, Pinckney and Matthews: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 117 OF 1961, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE COLLETON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SHALL RECEIVE AN ANNUAL SALARY AND PER-MEETING EXPENSE ALLOWANCE IN AN AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE BOARD NOT EXCEED A SPECIFIED AMOUNT.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Bowers R. Brown Hodges
Those who voted in the negative are:
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
S. 656 (Word version) -- Senators Leatherman, Moore, Leventis, McGill, Cleary, Setzler and Land: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-910, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX AND THE SPECIAL THREE PERCENT SALES AND USE TAX IMPOSED ON UNPREPARED FOOD, SO AS TO REDUCE THIS SPECIAL RATE ON UNPREPARED FOOD FROM THREE PERCENT TO TWO PERCENT EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008, TO DELETE AN OBSOLETE PROVISION, AND TO REDUCE THIS TWO PERCENT RATE IN INCREMENTS OF ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENTAGE POINT IF THE FEBRUARY FIFTEENTH FORECAST OF ANNUAL GENERAL FUND GROWTH FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR EQUALS AT LEAST FIVE PERCENT OF THE MOST RECENT ESTIMATE OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE A PERMANENT EXEMPTION FOR UNPREPARED FOOD WHICH LAWFULLY MAY BE PURCHASED WITH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD COUPONS BEGINNING THE JULY FIRST THAT THE PHASE-DOWN OF THE STATE SALES TAX RATE ON UNPREPARED FOOD ATTAINS ZERO.
Rep. COOPER explained the Senate Amendments.
The House refused to agree to the Senate Amendments and a message was ordered sent accordingly.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 3544 (Word version) -- Reps. Dantzler, Umphlett, McLeod, Bedingfield, Bowers, Harrell, Jefferson, E. H. Pitts, G. R. Smith, Williams and Bales: A
Rep. TALLEY proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\10161HTC07), which was ruled out of order:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/ SECTION 1. (A)In fiscal year 2007-2008 only, alternative fuel purchases incentive payments are provided as follows:
(1) There is a five cents incentive payment to the retailer for each gallon of E70 fuel or greater sold, provided that the E70 fuel is subject to the South Carolina motor fuel tax. The payment must be made to the retailer upon compliance with verification procedures set forth by the Department of Agriculture.
(2) There is a twenty-five cents incentive payment to the retailer for each gallon of pure biodiesel fuel sold, so that the biodiesel in the blend is at least two percent B2 or greater, provided that the qualified biodiesel content fuel is subject to the South Carolina motor fuel tax. Biodiesel fuel is a fuel for motor vehicle diesel engines comprised of vegetable oils or animal fats and meeting the specifications of ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials) D 6751. The payment must be made to the retailer upon compliance with verification procedures set forth by the Department of Agriculture.
(3) There is a twenty-five cents incentive payment to the retailer or wholesaler for each gallon of pure biodiesel fuel sold as dyed diesel fuel for "off road" uses, so that the biodiesel in the blend is at least two percent B2 or greater. The payment must be made to the retailer upon compliance with verification procedures set forth by the Department of Agriculture.
(B) In fiscal year 2007-2008 only, an incentive payment for production of electricity or methane gas fuel is provided as follows:
(1) 1.0 cent per kilowatt-hour (kwh) for electricity produced from biomass resources in a facility not using biomass resources prior to June 30, 2007, or facilities which produce at least 25 percent more electricity from biomass resources than greatest three year average prior to June 30, 2007, up to a maximum of $100,000. The rebate is
(2) 9.0 cents per therm for methane gas fuel produced from biomass resources in a facility not using biomass resources prior to June 30, 2007, or facilities which produce at least 25 percent more methane gas from biomass resources than greatest three year average prior to June 30, 2007, up to a maximum of $100,000. The rebate is applicable to energy from a qualifying facility placed in service and first producing energy on or after July 1, 2007.
(3) For purposes of this subsection, a biomass resource means wood, wood waste, agricultural waste, animal waste, sewage, landfill gas, and other organic materials.
(C)(1) An incentive payment for each gallon of B20 fuel sold beginning after June 30, 2006, and ending before July 1, 2007, is provided to a retailer, provided that the B20 fuel is subject to the South Carolina motor fuel user fee. The incentive payment is equal to five cents for each gallon of B20 fuel sold by a retailer. The payment must be made to the retailer upon compliance with verification procedures set forth by the Department of Agriculture. The total incentive payments to all retailers available pursuant to this section must not exceed three hundred eighty-five thousand dollars.
(2) The incentive payments provided pursuant to subsection (C) must be paid upon application of the retailer to the Department of Revenue from unexpended funds received by the department pursuant to Paragraph 73.17, Part IB, Act 397 of 2006.
(D) The Department of Revenue may prescribe forms, procedures, issue policy documents, and distribute funds as necessary to ensure the orderly and timely implementation of the provisions of this section. The Department of Revenue shall coordinate with the Department of Agriculture and the State Energy Office as necessary.
(E) Unexpended funds received by the Department of Revenue from Paragraph 73.17, Part IB, Act 397 of 2006, must be dispersed in the following manner to meet the requirements of this section: $1,930,000 must be retained by the Department of Revenue for the purpose of alternative fuel purchases incentive payments; and $2,300,000 must be transferred to the South Carolina Renewable Energy Infrastructure Development Fund. If the projected carry-forward funds are less than $4,230,000, funding for the South Carolina Renewable Energy Infrastructure Development Fund must be reduced.
"Section 46-3-260. (A) There is established in the State Treasury a separate and distinct fund known as the 'South Carolina Renewable Energy Infrastructure Development Fund'. The revenues of the fund must be distributed by the South Carolina Renewable Energy Revolving Loan Program and the South Carolina Renewable Energy Grant Program. Disbursement of these funds by the loan and grant programs must be approved by the South Carolina Renewable Energy Oversight Committee. The committee shall consist of seven members, one appointed by each of the following persons: the Governor, the Commissioner of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
(1) The South Carolina Renewable Energy Revolving Loan Program shall provide low interest loans, with a rate not to exceed the Wall Street Journal prime interest rate, to an individual or organization that plans to build a qualified renewable energy production facility. A renewable energy production facility is a facility that produces energy or transportation fuels from biomass, solar, or wind resources. A loan from the program may provide up to fifty percent of the total cost of a project, but must not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars for each project. The Department of Agriculture shall administer the South Carolina Renewable Energy Revolving Loan Program, in cooperation with the South Carolina Institute of Energy Studies.
(2) The South Carolina Renewable Energy Grant Program shall provide grants to a private and public entity located in South Carolina for the purpose of assisting the entity to be more competitive in obtaining federal and other available grants that may generate renewable energy-related research and projects to directly benefit the State. The Department of Agriculture shall administer the South Carolina Renewable Energy Grant Program, in cooperation with the South Carolina Institute of Energy Studies and the South Carolina Research Authority. Grants are available in the following three categories:
(a) planning grants up to ten thousand dollars are available to a research institution or private organization to develop proposals to obtain federal grants and other funding sources for biomass, solar, and wind energy projects in South Carolina;
(b) matching grants up to two hundred thousand dollars are available for research and development projects that relate to development of South Carolina biomass, solar, and wind energy resources, provided that the grant does not exceed fifty percent of the total cost of the project; and
(c) matching grants up to two hundred thousand dollars are available for demonstration projects that validate the effectiveness of new and future biomass technologies and products, provided that the grant does not exceed fifty percent of the total cost of the demonstration project."
SECTION 3. 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 4. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. TALLEY explained the amendment.
Rep. SCOTT raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 1 was out of order in that it was not germane to the Bill.
Rep. TALLEY argued contra.
SPEAKER HARRELL stated that in accordance with House Rule 9.3, nothing shall prevent the adoption of an Amendment which rewrites the Bill in its entirety if the Bill as rewritten remains germane to the original title of the Bill. He stated further that the Amendment dealt with fuel tax credits, but the original Bill dealt with mobile home tax credits. He therefore sustained the Point of Order and ruled the Amendment out of order.
Reps. HARRELL, YOUNG and MERRILL proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20401SD07):
"Section 12-36-2115. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal year 2007-2008, the first forty million dollars of the revenue collected from the sales and use tax imposed on the sale or lease of motor vehicles must be transferred and credited by the State Treasurer in equal shares to the Department of Transportation for deposit in the State Highway Fund and to the South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank for its purposes provided by law.
Beginning with fiscal year 2008-2009, all of the revenue collected from the sales and use tax imposed on the sale or lease of motor vehicles in a fiscal year as determined by the Department of Revenue must be transferred and credited by the State Treasurer in equal shares to the Department of Transportation for deposit in the State Highway Fund and to the South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank for its purposes provided by law. However, in a fiscal year, there must be credited to the EIA Fund and Property Tax Relief Fund the proportion of these revenues, as estimated by the Board of Economic Advisors, that those funds would have received in the absence of this section." /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. MERRILL explained the amendment.
Rep. OTT spoke against the amendment.
Rep. Jennings raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 2 was out of order under House Rule 5.3A in that the required certificate from the Budget and Control Board was not attached to the Bill. Secondly, he stated that the Amendment was not germane in accordance with House Rule 5.3B in that it had the effect of appropriating funds in excess of five million dollars during the fiscal year and there was no corresponding appropriation reductions and/or revenue increases that would fully fund the proposed Amendment's appropriation. Thirdly, he asserted that the Amendment was in violation of House Rule 5.3(D)(4) in that the Appropriation Act must include total funds approved for the next fiscal year and a listing of appropriations from the General Fund. Fourthly, he stated that the Bill was in violation of House Rule 5.9 in that the Bill should be reprinted following its second reading, since it
Rep. COBB-HUNTER inquired as to whether or not H. 3544, as amended by the Senate, would now qualify as an Appropriation Bill.
SPEAKER HARRELL stated that the Bill as amended by the Senate would become an Appropriation Bill.
Rep. GOVAN raised the Point of Order that H. 3544 was out of order under House Rule 5.3(D)(4) in that an Appropriation Act must include total funds approved for the next fiscal year and a listing of appropriations from the General Fund.
SPEAKER HARRELL cited his earlier ruling on Rep. JENNINGS' identical Point of Order and went on to further clarify that the Bill did not allow for the spending of nonrecurring funds to be used for recurring expenditures. He therefore overruled the Point of Order.
Rep. JENNINGS raised the Point of Order that the Bill, because the SPEAKER had ruled it to be an Appropriation Bill, was in violation of Article III, Section 15 of the South Carolina Constitution in that it did not originate in the House of Representatives.
SPEAKER HARRELL stated that the Bill was a House Bill that had been amended by the Senate to become an Appropriation Bill. The SPEAKER overruled the Point of Order.
Rep. Jennings raised the Point of Order that H. 3544 was out of order under House Rule 5.10 in that printed copies must be laid on the members' desks at least three legislative days.
SPEAKER HARRELL cited his earlier ruling on Rep. JENNINGS' identical point of order and restated that the Rule applied to the Appropriation Bill on second reading and not to Senate Amendments to the Bill. He therefore overruled the Point of Order.
Rep. SKELTON spoke against the amendment.
Rep. MERRILL moved to adjourn debate on the Senate Amendments, which was agreed to.
The following was received from the Senate:
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 2007
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it insists upon its amendments to S. 656:
S. 656 (Word version) -- Senators Leatherman, Moore, Leventis, McGill, Cleary, Setzler and Land: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-910, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX AND THE SPECIAL THREE PERCENT SALES AND USE TAX IMPOSED ON UNPREPARED FOOD, SO AS TO REDUCE THIS SPECIAL RATE ON UNPREPARED FOOD FROM THREE PERCENT TO TWO PERCENT EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008, TO DELETE AN OBSOLETE PROVISION, AND TO
Very respectfully,
President
Whereupon, the Chair appointed Reps. COOPER, EDGE and NEILSON to the Committee of Conference on the part of the House and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 2007
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has requested and has granted free conference powers and appointed Senators McConnell, Moore and Ryberg of the Committee of Free Conference on the part of the Senate on S. 355:
S. 355 (Word version) -- Senators Grooms, Richardson, Verdin, Campsen and Vaughn: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-30-105 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE COMMISSION IS ABOLISHED AND THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 2007
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the Veto by the Governor on R. 108, S. 99 by a vote of 36 to 7:
(R108) S. 99 (Word version) -- Senators Sheheen, Malloy and Ford: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-11-20 AND 7-13-15, BOTH AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PARTY CONVENTIONS AND PARTY PRIMARY ELECTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION CONDUCT PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES, THAT THE STATE COMMITTEE OF THE PARTY SET THE DATE, FILING REQUIREMENTS AND CERTIFICATION FEE FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES, TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR VERIFICATION OF THE QUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATES, TO CLARIFY CERTAIN EXISTING PROVISIONS CONCERNING PRIMARIES, AND TO SPECIFY WHICH PRIMARIES MUST BE CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; TO DESIGNATE SECTION 14 OF ACT 253 OF 1992 AS SECTION 7-11-25, RELATING TO POLITICAL PARTIES NOT PROHIBITED FROM CONDUCTING PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE OR ADVISORY PRIMARIES, SO AS TO DELETE THE REFERENCES TO PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES; AND BY ADDING SECTION 7-9-110 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A POLITICAL PARTY OR STATE ELECTION COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A PRIMARY OR ELECTION, WITHOUT CHARGE, IN A FACILITY THAT RECEIVES STATE FUNDS FOR SUPPORT OR OPERATION.
Very respectfully,
President
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
June 14, 2007
The Honorable André Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, 1st Floor, East Wing
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval S. 99 (Word version), R. 108.
I struggled down to the wire on this Bill because it contains two principles seemingly in conflict with each other. Before I get into these principles, I would like to thank my party chairman for his persistent, but reasonable, advocacy of this Bill. In addition to valid legal questions he raised, because of our funding, we find ourselves in the odd spot of being the only State in the country to do it as we do - which, in fairness, puts him at a most unusual spot as well.
Here is what I have been deliberating.
On the one hand, there is nothing more fundamental to the democratic process than fair and open elections, and if this were just about the presidential election, I would have supported it. There were also a number of additional considerations in the form of news coverage, candidate presence, and ultimate voice in Washington - but it seems these things would be sustained with or without public funding as long as South Carolina maintains its position as the gateway to the South in presidential elections.
On the other hand, it is our belief that government money should not be used in political party activities. As there are two separate elections, one for Republicans and another for Democrats, this seems to fall into this category. These party activities, indeed, still provide a public benefit - but in their present form, would come at double the cost of a single election to the taxpayer. As long as this is the case, I am, unfortunately, compelled to veto this legislation. Were parties willing to reimburse the Election Commission for the two separate events, I would be willing to support this legislation. Alternatively, if the parties were able to come together on a single election, I could support the legislation.
The administration's position, if sustained, may carry with it several benefits to the parties themselves and people at large in South Carolina.
As onerous as it may be to raise money, doing so brings with it complete flexibility on setting the date of South Carolina primaries. Our state's agility and flexibility going forward in responding to what other states do may be one of the keys to keeping South Carolina in its very important position in the presidential election process. At present, we do not have to wait on the deliberations of a commission, board, Governor or legislative body in determining our primary date.
In addition, because of the way we have done things differently in presidential primaries, our State engages civil society and the electorate at large in a way that I think is profoundly good. I know that it is cumbersome and a lot of work to enlist hundreds and even thousands of people across our State to be involved in the running of an election, but it is that spirit of volunteerism that most struck de Tocqueville during his early visit to America two hundred years ago. Rather than having government take over yet another function of our lives, isn't there something quite healthy about people volunteering to administer elections that will impact the state and country in which they live? I believe that a lot of people are looking for areas in which to serve things bigger than themselves, and having civil society continue to be engaged in the administration of an election could be a great outlet for doing so.
Finally, why add to taxpayers the cost of something that has been well handled by the parties themselves the last twenty years?
For the reasons stated above, I am vetoing S. 99, R. 108, and returning it without my approval.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R108) S. 99 (Word version) -- Senators Sheheen, Malloy and Ford: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-11-20 AND 7-13-15, BOTH AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PARTY CONVENTIONS AND PARTY PRIMARY ELECTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE
Rep. PERRY spoke in favor of the Veto.
Rep. CLEMMONS spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chellis Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Delleney Duncan
Edge Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Hart Haskins Hayes Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Lowe Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Rutherford Scott Sellers Shoopman Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Thompson Toole Vick Weeks Whipper Whitmire Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ceips Dantzler Davenport Frye Herbkersman Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Merrill Moss Mulvaney Perry Sandifer Scarborough D. C. Smith Stewart White Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
I was temporarily out of the Chamber in a Conference Committee meeting during the vote to override the Veto on S. 99. Had I been present, I would have voted to override the Veto.
Rep. Robert Walker
I was in the Senate Chamber on House business when the vote was taken on the Governor's Veto on S. 99, regarding state funded Presidential Primary elections. Had I been present, I would have voted to override the Governor's Veto.
Rep. Thad Viers
Rep. LOFTIS moved that the House recede until 3:45 p.m., which was agreed to.
At 3:45 p.m. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
The question of a quorum was raised.
A quorum was later present.
The motion period was dispensed with on motion of Rep. R. BROWN.
Rep. R. BROWN moved that the House recur to the Morning Hour, which was agreed to.
The following was introduced:
H. 4271 (Word version) -- Reps. Thompson, Agnew, Bowen, Cooper, Gambrell, White, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cotty, Crawford, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hinson, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly,
The Resolution was adopted.
Rep. HART asked unanimous consent to recall H. 3448 (Word version) from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
Rep. G. M. SMITH objected.
Rep. HART asked unanimous consent to recall H. 3588 (Word version) from the Committee on Judiciary.
Rep. COOPER objected.
The SPEAKER ordered the Conference Report on the following Bill printed in the Journal:
The COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
S. 332 (Word version) -- Senators Martin, Ritchie and Vaughn: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-55-530, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT "FALSE STATEMENT AND MISREPRESENTATION" INCLUDES A FALSE BUSINESS ACTIVITY REPORT, MISCOUNT OR
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the same do pass with the following amendments:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting therein the following:
SECTION 1. Section 1-23-600(D) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 387 of 2006, is further amended to read:
"(D) An administrative law judge also shall preside over all appeals from final decisions of contested cases pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, Article I, Section 22, Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895, or another law, except that an appeal from a final order of the Public Service Commission and the State Ethics Commission is to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as provided in the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, an appeal from the Procurement Review Panel is to the circuit court as provided in Section 11-35-4410, an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Commission is to the circuit court Court of Appeals as provided in Section 42-17-60, and an appeal from the Employment Security Commission is to the circuit court as provided in Section 41-35-750."
SECTION 2. Section 14-8-200(a) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 387 of 2006, is further amended to read:
"(a) Except as limited by subsection (b) and Section 14-8-260, the court has jurisdiction over any case in which an appeal is taken from an order, judgment, or decree of the circuit court, family court, a final decision of an agency, or a final decision of an administrative law judge, or the final decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission. This jurisdiction is appellate only, and the court shall apply the same scope of review that the Supreme Court would apply in a similar case. The court has the same authority to issue writs of supersedeas, grant stays, and grant petitions for bail as the Supreme Court would have in a similar case. The court, to the extent the Supreme Court may by rule provide for it to do so, has jurisdiction to
SECTION 3. Section 38-55-530(D) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(D) 'False statement and or misrepresentation' means a statement or representation made by a person that is false, material, made with the person's knowledge of the falsity of the statement and made with the intent of obtaining or causing another to obtain or attempting to obtain or causing another to obtain an undeserved economic advantage or benefit or made with the intent to deny or cause another to deny any benefit or payment in connection with an insurance transaction, and such shall constitute fraud. 'False statement or misrepresentation' specifically includes, but is not limited to, an intentional:
(1) false report of business activities;
(2) miscount or misclassification by an employer of its employees;
(3) failure to timely reduce reserves;
(4) failure to account for Second Injury Fund reimbursements or subrogation reimbursements; or
(5) failure to provide verifiable information to public or private rating bureaus and the Department of Insurance.
An undeserved economic benefit or advantage includes, but is not limited to, a favorable insurance premium, payment schedule, insurance award, or insurance settlement."
SECTION 4. Section 38-55-540 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 38-55-540. (A) Any A person or insurer who knowingly makes a false statement or misrepresentation, and any other person knowingly, with an intent to injure, defraud, or deceive, or who assists, abets, solicits, or conspires with such a person or insurer to make a false statement or misrepresentation, is guilty of a:
(1) misdemeanor, for a first offense violation, if the amount of the economic advantage or benefit received is less than one thousand dollars. Upon conviction, the person must be punished by a fine fined not to exceed less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment imprisoned not to exceed more than thirty days;
(2) misdemeanor, for a first offense violation, if the amount of the economic advantage or benefit received is one thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars. Upon conviction, the person must be punished by a fine fined not to exceed less than two thousand nor more than fifty ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for a term
(3) felony, for a first offense violation, if the amount of the economic advantage or benefit received is ten thousand dollars or more but less than fifty thousand dollars. Upon conviction, the person must be fined not less than ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both;
(4) felony, for a first offense violation, if the amount of the economic advantage or benefit received is fifty thousand dollars or more. Upon conviction, the person must be fined not less than twenty thousand nor more than one hundred thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
(3)(5) felony, for a second or subsequent violation, regardless of the amount of the economic advantage or benefit received. Upon conviction, the person must be punished by a fine fined not to exceed fifty less than twenty thousand nor more than one hundred thousand dollars or by imprisonment for a term imprisoned not to exceed more than ten years, or by both, such fine and imprisonment.
(B) In addition to the criminal penalties set forth in subsection (A), Any a person or insurer convicted under pursuant to the provisions of this section must be ordered by the court to make full restitution to the a victim or victims for any economic advantage or benefit which has been obtained by the person or insurer as a result of that violation, and to pay the difference between any taxes owed and any taxes the person paid, if applicable."
SECTION 5. Section 38-55-560(E) of the 1976 Code is amended by adding at the end:
"(E) The Attorney General is authorized to hire, employ, and reasonably equip one forensic accountant, and this forensic accountant must be assigned to the Insurance Fraud Division of the Attorney General's Office. A person is not qualified to be hired and the Insurance Fraud Division may not hire a forensic accountant unless he possesses and maintains a current license to engage in the practice of accounting pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2, Title 40."
SECTION 6. Section 42-1-160 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-1-160. (A) 'Injury' and 'personal injury' shall mean only injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment and shall not include a disease in any form, except when it results naturally and unavoidably from the accident and except such diseases as are compensable under the provisions of Chapter 11 of this
(B) Stress, mental injuries, and mental illness arising out of and in the course of employment unaccompanied by physical injury and resulting in mental illness or injury is are not considered a personal injury unless it is established the employee establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) that the stressful employee's employment conditions causing the mental injury stress, mental injury, or mental illness were extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the normal conditions of the particular employment; and
(2) the medical causation between the stress, mental injury, or mental illness, and the stressful employment conditions by medical evidence.
(C) Stress, mental injuries, heart attacks, strokes, embolisms, or aneurisms arising out of and in the course of employment unaccompanied by physical injury is are not considered compensable if it results they result from any event or series of events which is are incidental to normal employer/employee relations including, but not limited to, personnel actions by the employer such as disciplinary actions, work evaluations, transfers, promotions, demotions, salary reviews, or terminations, except when these actions are taken in an extraordinary and unusual manner.
(D) Stress, mental injuries, and mental illness alleged to have been aggravated by a work-related physical injury may not be found compensable unless the aggravation is:
(1) admitted by the employer/carrier;
(2) noted in a medical record of an authorized physician that, in the physician's opinion, the condition is at least in part causally-related or connected to the injury or accident, whether or not the physician refers the employee for treatment of the condition;
(3) found to be causally-related or connected to the accident or injury after evaluation by an authorized psychologist or psychiatrist; or
(4) noted in a medical record or report of the employee's physician as causally-related or connected to the injury or accident.
(E) In medically complex cases, an employee shall establish by medical evidence that the injury arose in the course of employment. For purposes of this subsection, 'medically complex cases' means
(F) The word 'accident' as used in this title must not be construed to mean a series of events in employment, of a similar or like nature, occurring regularly, continuously, or at frequent intervals in the course of such employment, over extended periods of time. Any injury or disease attributable to such causes must be compensable only if culminating in a compensable repetitive trauma injury pursuant to Section 42-1-172 or an occupational disease pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 11 of this title.
(G) As used in this section, 'medical evidence' means expert opinion or testimony stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, documents, records, or other material that is offered by a licensed health care provider."
SECTION 7. Chapter 1, Title 42 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 42-1-172. (A) 'Repetitive trauma injury' means an injury which is gradual in onset and caused by the cumulative effects of repetitive traumatic events. Compensability of a repetitive trauma injury must be determined only under the provisions of this statute.
(B) An injury is not considered a compensable repetitive trauma injury unless a commissioner makes a specific finding of fact by a preponderance of the evidence of a causal connection that is established by medical evidence between the repetitive activities that occurred while the employee was engaged in the regular duties of his employment and the injury.
(C) As used in this section, 'medical evidence' means expert opinion or testimony stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, documents, records, or other material that is offered by a licensed and qualified medical physician.
(D) A 'repetitive trauma injury' is considered to arise out of employment only if it is established by medical evidence that there is a direct causal relationship between the condition under which the work is performed and the injury.
(E) Upon reaching maximum medical improvement, the employee may be entitled to benefits pursuant to Section 42-9-10, Section 42-9-20, or Section 42-9-30. Medical benefits for compensable repetitive trauma injuries shall be as provided elsewhere in this title."
SECTION 8. Section 42-1-360 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-1-360. This title shall does not apply to:
(1) a casual employees employee, as defined in Section 42-1-130, and Federal employees in this State;
(2) any person who has regularly employed in service less than four employees in the same business within the State or who had a total annual payroll during the previous calendar year of less than three thousand dollars regardless of the number of persons employed during that period;
(3) Textile Hall Corporation, an eleemosynary corporation whose principal object is the organizing and production of the Southern Textile Exposition;
(4) a state and county fair associations association;, unless any such the employer voluntarily elects to be bound by this title, as provided by Section 42-1-380.;
(4) an agricultural employees employee;, unless the agricultural employer voluntarily elects to be bound by this title, as provided by Section 42-1-380.;
(5) a railroad, railroad employee, railway express company, or railway express company employee; nor may this title be construed to repeal, amend, alter, or affect in any way the laws of this State relating to the liability of a railroad or railway express company for an injury to a respective employee;
(6) a person engaged in selling any agricultural product for a producer of them on commission or for other compensation, paid by a producer, when the product is prepared for sale by the producer;
(7) a licensed real estate sales person engaged in the sale, leasing, or rental of real estate for a licensed real estate broker on a straight commission basis and who has signed a valid independent contractor agreement with the broker;
(8) a federal employee in this State;
(9) an individual who owns or holds under a bona fide lease-purchase or installment-purchase agreement a tractor-trailer, tractor, or other vehicle, referred to as 'vehicle', and who, under a valid independent contractor contract provides that vehicle and the individual's services as a driver to a motor carrier. For purposes of this item, any lease-purchase or installment-purchase of the vehicle may not be between the individual and the motor carrier referenced in this title, but it may be between the individual and an affiliate, subsidiary, or related entity or person of the motor carrier, or any other lessor or seller. Where the lease-purchase or installment-purchase is between the individual and an affiliate, subsidiary, or related entity or person of
SECTION 9. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 42-1-700. (A) Injured or affected body parts and conditions shall be set forth with as much specificity as possible on the commission's Employee's Notice of Claim and/or Request for Hearing form, hereinafter referred to as Form 50. A Form 50 shall not describe the injured body part(s) or condition(s) as 'whole person', 'whole body', 'all body parts', or other similar language unless the injured employee died as a result of the accident. No hearing shall be held on a Form 50 which does not conform to the requirements of this subsection.
(B) Nothing in this section prohibits a commissioner from determining the compensability of a body part or condition not listed or described on a Form 50 if:
(1) the body part or condition is proved by a preponderance of the evidence to have arisen from the injury or injuries out of and in the course of employment as set forth on the Form 50;
(2) it is proven to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the employee had no knowledge of the injury or condition on the date of the completion of the Form 50. However, the employee is required to amend the Form 50 upon discovery of the injury or condition within a reasonable time period pursuant to regulation; or
(3) in the case of a represented employee, the body part or condition is set forth on the commission's Pre-Hearing Brief form, and such pre-hearing brief is timely filed with the commission and timely served upon the parties.
(C) A Form 50 must be signed by an attorney if the employee is represented, verifying that the contents of the form are accurate and true to the best of the attorney's knowledge. If the employee is not
SECTION 10. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 42-1-705. (A) The commission's Employer's Answer to Request for Hearing form, hereinafter referred to as Form 51, must describe with as much specificity as possible the defenses to be relied upon by the defendants. A Form 51 shall not state that 'all defenses apply' or other similar language, unless such is actually the case. A Form 51 which does not conform to the requirements of this subsection shall not be considered at a hearing.
(B) Nothing in this section prohibits a commissioner from considering a defense not listed on a Form 51 if:
(1) it is proven to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the defendants had no knowledge of the facts supporting the defense on the date of the completion of the Form 51; and
(2) in the case of represented defendants, the defense omitted on the Form 51 is set forth on the commission's Pre-Hearing Brief form, and such brief is timely filed with the commission and timely served upon the parties.
(C) A Form 51 must be signed by an attorney, verifying that the contents of the form are accurate and true to the best of the attorney's knowledge. If the employer is unrepresented and completes a Form 51, the employer must sign the form, verifying that the contents are accurate and true to the best of the employer's knowledge."
SECTION 11. Section 42-3-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-3-20. (A) The commission shall consist of seven members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate for terms of six years and until their successors are appointed and qualify. In the event the Governor does not fill a vacancy within sixty days after the vacancy occurs, the commission by majority vote shall deputize a person with suitable experience, training, and knowledge to serve as a deputy commissioner to serve until such time as the Governor fills the vacancy. As soon as the Governor appoints a replacement who is confirmed by the Senate, the deputy commissioner shall immediately cease to serve in that office. While serving as a deputy commissioner, the deputy commissioner has the power and authority to swear or cause the witnesses to be sworn and shall transmit all testimony and shall make a recommendation to the commission for an award. The commission must determine the award based upon
(B) The Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall designate one commissioner as chairman for a term of two years, and the chairman may serve two terms in during his six-year term but not consecutively. At the conclusion of a commissioner's two-year term as chairman, the Governor shall appoint another chairman. If the Governor does not appoint another chairman at the expiration of the two-year term, a majority of the commission shall elect from among their members an interim chairman who shall serve until the Governor appoints another chairman other than the one last appointed. A deputy commissioner is not eligible to serve as chairman.
(C) The commissioners shall hear and determine all contested cases, conduct informal conferences when necessary, approve settlements, hear applications for full Commission commission reviews, and handle such other matters as may come before the department for judicial disposition. Full Commission commission reviews shall be conducted by six all commissioners only, with the original hearing commissioner not sitting at such reviews. When one commissioner is temporarily incapacitated or a vacancy exists on the Commission, reviews may be conducted by the five remaining commissioners but in such cases decisions of the hearing commissioner shall not be reversed except on the vote of at least four commissioners; provided, however, that effective July 1, 1981 full Commission reviews may be conducted, excluding the original hearing commissioner, or by three-member panels composed of three commissioners, excluding the original hearing commissioner, appointed by the chairman excluding the original hearing commissioner. The chairman, with unanimous approval of a majority of the other commissioners, shall determine which full commission reviews shall be assigned to panels. The decisions of such three-member panels shall have the same force and effect as nonpanel full commission reviews."
SECTION 12. Section 42-3-60 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-3-60. Each commissioner shall be authorized to employ a secretary and a court reporter an administrative assistant to serve at his the commissioner's pleasure."
SECTION 13. Section 42-3-175 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 42-3-175. (A)(1) If a claimant brings an action before the commission to enforce an order authorizing medical treatment or
(2) The commission must notify the Department of Insurance of an insurer's or an adjuster's failure to authorize and pay benefits for medical treatment. If the Director of the Department of Insurance or his or her designee determines that there has been a violation of any provision of Title 38, he may impose penalties for each violation, including, but not limited to, administrative penalties pursuant to Section 38-2-10.
(B)(1) If the commission discovers a pattern of an insurer failing to pay benefits pursuant to an award, as defined in item (2), the chairman must notify the Director of the Department of Insurance. The director or his or her designee must hold a hearing to determine if the insurer had good cause for nonpayment. If the director or his or her designee determines that nonpayment was intentional three or more times within a two-year period, the director may revoke the license of the insurer to do business in this State. If the director or his or her designee revokes the license of the insurer, he must take any steps he considers necessary for the protection of the insurer's policyholders in this State.
(2) For purposes of this section, a pattern is established upon an insurer's failure to pay an award at least three times within a two-year period by failing to pay:
(a) for individual claims;
(b) for a claim in which the claimant had to request enforcement of an award; or
(c) any combination of subitems (a) and (b).
(3) All fines collected pursuant to this section must be submitted to the General Fund."
SECTION 14. Section 42-3-230 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-3-230. The Commission commission may from time to time, as it may deem consider advisable, destroy any of its inactive files that are at least five fifteen years old. The commission may maintain these files in either paper or electronic form. No files of the
SECTION 15. Section 42-5-40 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-5-40. Any employer required to secure the payment of compensation under this title who refuses or neglects to secure such compensation shall be punished by a fine of ten cents one dollar for each employee at the time of the insurance becoming due, but not less than one dollar ten dollars nor more than fifty one hundred dollars for each day of such refusal or neglect, and until the same ceases, and he shall be liable during continuance of such refusal or neglect to an employee either for compensation under this title or at law in an action instituted by the employee or his personal representative against such employer to recover damages for personal injury or death by accident and in any such action such employer shall not be permitted to defend upon any of the grounds mentioned in Section 42-1-510.
The fine provided in this section may be assessed by the commission in an open hearing with the right of review and appeal as in other cases. All fines collected pursuant to this section must be submitted to the General Fund."
SECTION 16. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 42-9-5. Any award made pursuant to this title must be based upon specific and written detailed findings of fact substantiating the award."
SECTION 17. Section 42-9-10 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-9-10. (A) When the incapacity for work resulting from an injury is total, the employer shall pay, or cause to be paid, as provided in this chapter, to the injured employee during the total disability a weekly compensation equal to sixty-six and two-thirds percent of his average weekly wages, but not less than seventy-five dollars a week so long as this amount does not exceed his average weekly salary; if this amount does exceed his average weekly salary, the injured employee may not be paid, each week, less than his average weekly salary. The injured employee may not be paid more each week than the average weekly wage in this State for the preceding fiscal year. In no case may the period covered by the compensation exceed five hundred weeks except as hereinafter provided in subsection (C).
(B) The loss of both hands, arms, shoulders, feet, legs, hips, or vision in both eyes, or any two thereof, constitutes total and permanent disability to be compensated according to the provisions of this section.
(C) Notwithstanding the five-hundred-week limitation prescribed in this section or elsewhere in this title, any person determined to be totally and permanently disabled who as a result of a compensable injury is a paraplegic, a quadraplegic, or who has suffered physical brain damage is not subject to the five-hundred-week limitation and shall receive the benefits for life.
(D) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 42-9-301, no total lump sum payment may be ordered by the commission in any case under this section where the injured person is entitled to lifetime benefits."
SECTION 18. Section 42-9-30 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 412 of 1988, is further amended to read:
"Section 42-9-30. In cases included in the following schedule, the disability in each case shall be deemed is considered to continue for the period specified and the compensation so paid for such the injury shall be is as specified therein, to wit:
(1) for the loss of a thumb sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during sixty-five weeks;
(2) for the loss of a first finger, commonly called the index finger, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during forty weeks;
(3) for the loss of a second finger, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during thirty-five weeks;
(4) for the loss of a third finger, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during twenty-five weeks;
(5) for the loss of a fourth finger, commonly called the little finger, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during twenty weeks;
(6) the loss of the first phalange of the thumb or any finger shall be is considered to be equal to the loss of one half of such thumb or finger and the compensation shall must be for one half of the periods of time above specified;
(7) the loss of more than one phalange shall be is considered the loss of the entire finger or thumb; provided, however, that in no case shall the amount received for more than one finger exceed the amount provided in this schedule for the loss of a hand;
(8) for the loss of a great toe, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during thirty-five weeks;
(9) for the loss of one of the toes other than a great toe, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during ten weeks;
(10) the loss of the first phalange of any toe shall be is considered to be equal to the loss of one half of such toe and the compensation shall must be for one half the periods of time above specified;
(11) the loss of more than one phalange shall be is considered as the loss of the entire toe;
(12) for the loss of a hand, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during one hundred and eighty-five weeks;
(13) for the loss of an arm, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during two hundred twenty weeks;
(14) for the loss of a shoulder, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during three hundred weeks;
(15) for the loss of a foot, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during one hundred forty weeks;
(15)(16) for the loss of a leg, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during one hundred ninety-five weeks;
(17) for the loss of a hip, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during two hundred eighty weeks;
(16)(18) for the loss of an eye, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during one hundred forty weeks;
(17)(19) for the complete loss of hearing in one ear, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during eighty weeks; and for the complete loss of hearing in both ears, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during one hundred sixty-five weeks, and the commission, shall by regulation, shall provide for the determination of proportional benefits for total or partial loss of hearing based on accepted national medical standards.;
(18)(20) total loss of use of a member or loss of vision of an eye shall be is considered as equivalent to the loss of such the member or eye. The compensation for partial loss of or for partial loss of use of a member or for partial loss of vision of an eye shall be such is the proportion of the payments herein provided in this section for total loss as such partial loss bears to total loss.;
(19)(21) for the total loss of use of the back in cases where the loss of use is forty-nine percent or less, sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the average weekly wages during three hundred weeks. In cases where there is fifty percent or more loss of use of the back, sixty-six and two-thirds percent the average weekly wages during five hundred weeks. The compensation for partial loss of use of the back shall be such proportions of the periods of payment herein provided for total loss as
(20)(22) for the total or partial loss of, or loss of use of, a member, organ, or part of the body not covered herein in this section and not covered under Sections Section 42-9-10 or 42-9-20, sixty-six and two- thirds of the average weekly wages not to exceed five hundred weeks. The commission, shall by regulations regulation, shall prescribe the ratio which the partial loss or loss or partial loss of use of a particular member, organ, or body part bears to the whole man, basing such these ratios on accepted medical standards and such these ratios shall determine the benefits payable under this subsection.;
(21)(23) proper and equitable benefits shall must be paid for serious permanent disfigurement of the face, head, neck, or other area normally exposed in employment, not to exceed fifty weeks. Where benefits are paid or payable for injury to or loss of a particular member or organ under other provisions of this title, no additional benefits shall must not be paid under this paragraph item, except that disfigurement shall also include includes compensation for serious burn scars or keloid scars on the body resulting from injuries, in addition to any other compensation.
The weekly compensation payments referred to in this section shall all be are subject to the same limitations as to maximum and minimum as set out in Section 42-9-10."
SECTION 19. Chapter 9, Title 42 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 42-9-35. (A) The employee shall establish by a preponderance of the evidence, including medical evidence, that:
(1) the subsequent injury aggravated the preexisting condition or permanent physical impairment; or
(2) the preexisting condition or the permanent physical impairment aggravates the subsequent injury.
(B) The commission may award compensation benefits to an employee who has a permanent physical impairment or preexisting condition and who incurs a subsequent disability from an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment for the resulting disability of the permanent physical impairment or preexisting condition and the subsequent injury. However, if the subsequent injury is limited to a single body part or member scheduled in Section 42-9-30, except for total disability to the back as provided in Section 42-9-30(21), the
(C) As used in this section, 'medical evidence' means expert opinion or testimony stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, documents, records, or other material that is offered by a licensed health care provider.
(D) The provisions of this section apply whether or not the employer knows of the preexisting permanent disability.
(E) On and after the effective date of this section, an employee who suffers a subsequent injury which affects a single body part or member injury set forth in Section 42-9-30 is limited to the recovery set forth in that section."
SECTION 20. Section 42-9-60 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-9-60. No compensation shall be payable if the injury or death was occasioned by the intoxication of the employee or by the willful intention of the employee to injure or kill himself or another. In the event that any person claims that the provisions of this section are applicable in any case, the burden of proof shall be upon such person."
SECTION 21. Section 42-9-150 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-9-150. If an employee has a permanent disability or has sustained a permanent injury in service in the Army or Navy of the United States that resulted from serving in the United States Armed Forces or in another employment other than that in which he receives a subsequent permanent injury by accident, such as specified in Section 42-9-30 or the second paragraph of Section 42-9-10, he shall be entitled to compensation only for the degree of disability which would have resulted from the later accident if the earlier disability or injury had not existed, except that such employee may receive further benefits as provided by Sections 42-7-310, 42-9-400 and 42-9-410 Title if his subsequent injury qualifies for additional benefits provided therein under Section 42-9-35."
SECTION 22. Section 42-9-170 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-9-170. (A) If an employee receives a permanent injury as specified in Section 42-9-30 or the second paragraph of Section 42-9-10 after having sustained another permanent injury in the same employment, he shall be is entitled to compensation for both injuries, but the total compensation shall must be paid by extending the period
(B) If an employee receives a permanent injury as specified in Section 42-9-30 or the second paragraph of Section 42-9-10 after having sustained another permanent injury in the same employment, he is entitled to compensation for both injuries, but the total compensation must be paid by extending the period and not by increasing the amount of weekly compensation, and in no case exceeding five hundred weeks. If an employee previously has incurred permanent partial disability through the loss of a hand, arm, shoulder, foot, leg, hip, or eye and by subsequent accident incurs total permanent disability through the loss of another member, the employer's liability is for the subsequent injury only, except that the employee may receive further benefits as provided under the provisions of Section 42-9-35. This subsection is effective on July 1, 2008."
SECTION 23. Section 42-9-390 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-9-390. Nothing contained in this chapter may be construed so as to prevent settlements made by and between an employee and employer so as long as the amount of compensation and the time and manner of payment are in accordance with the provisions of this title. A copy of the settlement agreement must be filed by the employer with and approved by only one member of the commission if the employee is represented by an attorney. If the employee is not represented by an attorney, a copy of the settlement agreement must be filed by the employer with and approved by four members of the commission. The employer must file a copy of the settlement agreement with the commission if each party is represented by an attorney. If the employee is not represented by an attorney, a copy of the settlement agreement must be filed by the employer with the commission and approved by one member of the commission."
SECTION 24. Section 42-11-10 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-11-10. (A) The words 'Occupational disease' mean means a disease arising out of and in the course of employment which that is due to hazards in excess of those ordinarily incident to employment and is peculiar to the occupation in which the employee is engaged. A disease shall be deemed is considered an occupational disease only if caused by a hazard recognized as peculiar to a particular trade, process, occupation, or employment as a direct result of continuous exposure to the normal working conditions thereof of that particular trade, process, occupation, or employment. In a claim for an occupational disease, the employee shall establish that the occupational disease arose directly and naturally from exposure in this State to the hazards peculiar to the particular employment by a preponderance of the evidence.
(B) No disease shall be deemed considered an occupational disease when it:
(1) It does not result directly and naturally from exposure in this State to the hazards peculiar to the particular employment;
(2) It results from exposure to outside climatic conditions;
(3) It is a contagious disease resulting from exposure to fellow employees or from a hazard to which the workman would have been equally exposed outside of his employment;
(4) It is one of the ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is equally exposed, unless such disease follows as a complication and a natural incident of an occupational disease or unless there is a constant continuous exposure peculiar to the occupation itself which makes such disease a hazard inherent in such occupation;
(5) It is any disease of the cardiac, pulmonary, or circulatory system not resulting directly from abnormal external gaseous pressure exerted upon the body or the natural entrance into the body through the skin or natural orifices thereof of foreign organic or inorganic matter under circumstances peculiar to the employment and the processes utilized therein; or
(6) It is any chronic disease of the skeletal joints.
(C) As used in this section, 'medical evidence' means expert opinion or testimony stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, documents, records, or other material that is offered by a licensed health care provider.
(D) No compensation shall be payable for any occupational disease unless the employee suffers a disability as described in Section 42-9-10 or Section 42-9-20 or Section 42-9-30."
SECTION 25. Section 42-15-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-15-20. (A) Every injured employee or his representative shall immediately on the occurrence of an accident, or as soon thereafter as practicable, give or cause to be given to the employer a notice of the accident and the employee shall not be entitled to physician's fees nor to any compensation which may have accrued under the terms of this title prior to the giving of such notice, unless it can be shown that the employer, his agent, or representative, had knowledge of the accident or that the party required to give such notice had been prevented from doing so by reason of physical or mental incapacity or the fraud of deceit of some third person.
(B) No Except as provided in subsection (C), no compensation shall be payable unless such notice is given within ninety days after the occurrence of the accident or death, unless reasonable excuse is made to the satisfaction of the commission for not giving such timely notice, and the commission is satisfied that the employer has not been prejudiced thereby.
(C) In the case of repetitive trauma, notice must be given by the employee within ninety days of the date the employee discovered, or could have discovered by exercising reasonable diligence, that his condition is compensable, unless reasonable excuse is made to the satisfaction of the commission for not giving timely notice, and the commission is satisfied that the employer has not been unduly prejudiced thereby."
SECTION 26. Section 42-15-40 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-15-40. The right to compensation under this title is barred unless a claim is filed with the commission within two years after an accident, or if death resulted from the accident, within two years of the date of death. However, for occupational disease claims the two-year period does not begin to run until the employee concerned has been diagnosed definitively as having an occupational disease and has been notified of the diagnosis. For the death or injury of a member of the South Carolina National Guard, as provided for in Section 42-7-67, the time for filing a claim is two years after the accident or one year after the federal claim is finalized, whichever is later. The filing required by this section may be made by registered mail, and the registry service within the time periods set forth in this section constitutes timely filing. For a 'repetitive trauma injury' as defined in Section 42-1-172, the right to compensation is barred unless a claim is
SECTION 27. Section 42-15-60 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-15-60. (A) The employer shall provide medical, surgical, hospital, and other treatment, including medical and surgical supplies as may reasonably may be required, for a period not exceeding ten weeks from the date of an injury, to effect a cure or give relief and for such an additional time as in the judgment of the commission will tend to lessen the period of disability and, as evidenced by expert medical evidence stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. In addition thereto to it, such the original artificial members as may be reasonably may be necessary at the end of the healing period shall must be provided by the employer. In case of a controversy arising between employer and employee, the commission may order such further medical, surgical, hospital or other treatment as may in the discretion of the Commission be necessary. During the whole or any part of the remainder any period of disability resulting from the injury, the employer may, at his own option, may continue to furnish or cause to be furnished, free of charge to the employee, and the employee shall accept, an attending physician, unless otherwise ordered by the commission and, in addition, such surgical and hospital service and supplies as may be deemed and any medical care or treatment that is considered necessary by such the attending physician, or the commission unless otherwise ordered by the commission for good cause shown. The refusal of an employee to accept any medical, hospital, surgical, or other treatment or evaluation when provided by the employer or ordered by the commission shall bar such bars the employee from further compensation until such the refusal ceases and no compensation shall at any time be is not paid for the period of suspension refusal unless in the opinion of the commission the circumstances justified the refusal, in which case the commission may order a change in the medical or hospital service. If in an emergency, on account of the employer's failure to provide the medical care as specified in this section, a physician other than provided by the employer is called to treat the injured employee, the reasonable cost of such the service shall must be paid by the employer, if so ordered by the commission.
(B)(1) When a claim is settled on the commission's Agreement for Permanent Disability/Disfigurement Compensation form, the employer is not required to provide further medical treatment or medical modalities after one year from the date of full payment of the settlement unless the form specifically provides otherwise.
(2) Each award of permanency as ordered by the single commissioner or by the commission must contain a finding as to whether or not further medical treatment or modalities must be provided to the employee. If the employee is entitled to receive such benefits, the medical treatment or modalities to be provided must be set forth with as much specificity as possible in the single commissioner's order or the commission's order.
(3) In no case shall an employer be required to provide medical treatment or modalities in any case where there is a lapse in treatment of the employee by an authorized physician in excess of one year unless:
(a) the settlement agreement or commission order provides otherwise; or
(b) the employee has made reasonable attempts to obtain further treatment or modality from an authorized physician, but through no fault of the employee's own, is unable to obtain such treatment or modalities.
(C) In cases in which total and permanent disability results, reasonable and necessary nursing services, medicines, prosthetic devices, sick travel, medical, hospital, and other treatment or care shall be paid during the life of the injured employee, without regard to any limitation in this title including the maximum compensation limit. In cases of partial permanent partial disability, prosthetic devices shall be also furnished during the life of the injured employee or so for as long as they such devices are necessary."
SECTION 28. Section 42-15-80 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-15-80. (A) After an injury and so long as he claims compensation, the employee, if so requested by his employer or ordered by the commission, shall submit himself to examination, at reasonable times and places, by a duly qualified physician or surgeon designated and paid by the employer or the commission. The employee shall have has the right to have present at such the examination any duly qualified physician or surgeon provided and paid by him. No A fact communicated to or otherwise learned by any physician or surgeon who may have attended or examined the
(B) The commission shall promulgate regulations establishing the role of rehabilitation professionals and other similarly situated professionals in workers' compensation cases with consideration given to these persons' duties to both the employer and the employee and the standards of care applicable to the rehabilitation professional or other similarly situated professional as the case may be."
SECTION 29. Section 42-15-95 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-15-95. (A) Any employee who seeks treatment for any injury, disease, or condition for which compensation is sought under the provisions of this title shall be considered to have given his consent for the release of medical records relating to such examination or treatment under any applicable law or regulation. All existing information compiled by a health care facility, as defined in Section 44-7-130, or a health care provider licensed pursuant to Title 40 pertaining directly to a workers' compensation claim must be provided to the insurance carrier, the employer, the employee, their respective attorneys or certified rehabilitation professionals, or the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission, within fourteen days after receipt of written request. A health care facility and a health care provider may charge a fee for the search and duplication of a medical record, but the fee may not exceed sixty-five cents per page for the first thirty pages and fifty cents per page for all other pages, and a clerical fee for searching and handling not to exceed fifteen dollars per request plus actual postage and applicable sales tax. The facility or provider may charge a patient or the patient's representative no more than the actual cost of reproduction of an X-ray. Actual cost means the cost of materials and supplies used to duplicate the X-ray and the labor and
(B) A health care provider who provides examination or treatment for any injury, disease, or condition for which compensation is sought under the provisions of this title may discuss or communicate an employee's medical history, diagnosis, causation, course of treatment, prognosis, work restrictions, and impairments with the insurance carrier, employer, their respective attorneys or certified rehabilitation professionals, or the commission without the employee's consent. The employee must be:
(1) notified by the employer, carrier, or its representative requesting the discussion or communication with the health care provider in a timely fashion, in writing or orally, of the discussion or communication and may attend and participate. This notification must occur prior to the actual discussion or communication if the health care provider knows the discussion or communication will occur in the near future;
(2) advised by the employer, carrier, or its representative requesting the discussion or communication with the health care provider of the nature of the discussion or communication prior to the discussion or communication; and
(3) provided with a copy of the written questions at the same time the questions are submitted to the health care provider. The employee must also be provided with a copy of the response by the health care provider.
Any discussion or communication must not conflict with or interfere with the employee's examination or treatment.
Any discussions, communications, medical reports, or opinions obtained in accordance with this section will not constitute a breach of the physician's duty of confidentiality.
(C) Any discussions, communications, medical reports, or opinions obtained in violation of this section must be excluded from any proceedings under the provisions of this title."
SECTION 30. Section 42-17-60 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-17-60. The award of the commission, as provided in Section 42-17-40, if not reviewed in due time, or an award of the commission upon such the review, as provided in Section 42-17-50, is conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. However, either party to the dispute, within thirty days from the date of the award or within thirty days after receipt of notice to be sent by registered mail of the award, but not thereafter after whichever is the longest, may appeal from the decision of the commission to the court of common pleas of the county in which the alleged accident happened, or in which the employer resides or has his principal office, for errors of law under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions appeals. Notice of appeal must state the grounds of the appeal or the alleged errors of law. In case of an appeal from the decision of the commission on questions of law, the appeal does not operate as a supersedeas and thereafter after that time the employer is required to make payment of the award weekly payments of compensation and to provide medical treatment ordered by the commission involved in the appeal or certification until the questions at issue have been fully determined in accordance with the provisions of this title. Interest accrues on an unpaid portion of the award at the legal rate of interest as established in Section 34-31-20(B) during the pendency of an appeal."
SECTION 31. Section 42-17-90 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-17-90. (A) Section 42-17-90. Upon On its own motion or upon on the application of any a party in interest on the ground of a change in condition, the commission may review any an award and on such that review may make an award ending, diminishing, or increasing the compensation previously awarded, on proof by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a change of condition caused by the original injury, after the last payment of compensation. An award is subject to the maximum or minimum provided in this title, and shall the commission immediately shall send to the parties a copy of the order changing the award. No such The review shall does not affect such the award as regards any moneys monies paid and no such the review shall must not be made after twelve months from the date of the last payment of compensation pursuant to an award under provided by this title.
(B) A motion or application for change in condition involving a repetitive trauma injury must be made within one year from the date of
(C) A motion or application for change in condition involving an occupational disease must be made within one year from the date of the last compensation payment for the occupational disease. Any filing not made within this one-year period shall be considered untimely and shall not be reviewed."
SECTION 32. Sections 42-1-350, 42-1-370, 42-1-375, and 42-9-80 of the 1976 Code are repealed.
SECTION 1. Section 38-73-495 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 38-73-495. The director or his designee may:
(1) disapprove a previously approved rate for any classification for workers' compensation insurance upon a finding that the rate for that classification is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory;
(2) require the division of a particular classification into separate classifications, or the joining of separate classifications into one classification, upon a finding that such action is in the public interest;
(3) direct that a particular risk be classified in a particular classification upon a finding that a risk is classified incorrectly;
(4) disapprove an experience modification rate for workers' compensation insurance upon a finding that the rate is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. This includes an experience modification rate that fails to account for third party reimbursements, including the Second Injury Fund. Appeals regarding experience modification rates must first be exhausted through the National Council on Compensation Insurance's dispute resolution process prior to appealing with the Department of Insurance.
Appeals to the department must be filed within one year of policy expiration date or cancellation date, whichever comes first."
SECTION 2. Section 42-7-310(d)(2) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(2) equitable assessments upon each carrier which, as used in this section, includes all insurance carriers, self-insurers, and the State Accident Fund. Each carrier shall make payments to the fund in an amount equal to that proportion of one hundred seventy-five percent one hundred thirty-five percent of the total disbursement made from the fund during the preceding fiscal year less the amount of net assets in
SECTION 3. Section 42-9-400 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-9-400. (a) If an employee who has a permanent physical impairment from any cause or origin incurs a subsequent disability from injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in compensation and medical payments liability or either, for disability that is substantially greater, by reason of the combined effects of the preexisting impairment and subsequent injury or by reason of the and is caused by aggravation of the preexisting impairment, than that which would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone, the employer or his insurance carrier shall in the first instance pay all awards of compensation and medical benefits provided
(1) reimbursement of all compensation benefit payments payable subsequent to those payable for the first seventy-eight weeks following the injury.;
(2) reimbursement of fifty percent of medical payments in excess of three thousand dollars during the first seventy-eight weeks following the injury and then reimbursement of all medical benefit payments payable subsequent to the first seventy-eight weeks following the injury; provided, however, in order to obtain reimbursement for medical expense during the first seventy-eight weeks following the subsequent injury, an employer or carrier must establish that his liability for medical payments is substantially greater, by reason of the combined effects of the preexisting impairment and subsequent injury or by reason of the aggravation of the preexisting impairment, than that which would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone.
(b) If the subsequent injury of such an employee shall result in the death of the employee, and it shall be determined that the death would not have occurred except for such preexisting permanent physical impairment, the employer or his insurance carrier shall in the first instance pay the compensation prescribed by this title; but he or his insurance carrier shall be reimbursed from the Second Injury Fund created by Section 42-7-310, for all compensation payable in excess of seventy-eight weeks.
(c) In order to qualify under this section for reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund, the employer must establish when claim is made for reimbursement thereunder, that the employer had knowledge of the permanent physical impairment at the time that the employee was hired, or at the time the employee was retained in employment after the employer acquired such knowledge. However, the employer may qualify for reimbursement hereunder upon proof that he did not have prior knowledge of the employee's preexisting physical impairment because the existence of the condition was concealed by the employee.
(d) As used in this section, 'permanent physical impairment' means any permanent condition, whether congenital or due to injury or disease, of such seriousness as to constitute a hindrance or obstacle to
When an employer establishes his prior knowledge of the permanent impairment, then there shall be a presumption that the condition is permanent and that a hindrance or obstacle to employment or reemployment exists when the condition is one of the following impairments:
(1) Epilepsy;
(2) Diabetes;
(3) Cardiac disease;
(4) Arthritis
(5)(4) Amputated foot, leg, arm, or hand;
(6)(5) Loss of sight of one or both eyes or partial loss of uncorrected vision of more than seventy-five percent bilateral;
(7)(6) Residual disability from Poliomyelitis;
(8)(7) Cerebral palsy;
(9)(8) Multiple sclerosis;
(10)(9) Parkinson's disease;
(11)(10) Cerebral vascular accident;
(12)(11) Tuberculosis;
(13)(12) Silicosis;
(14)(13) Psychoneurotic disability following treatment in a recognized medical or mental institution;
(15)(14) Hemophilia;
(16)(15) Chronic ostemyelitis;
(17)(16) Ankylosis of joints;
(18)(17) Hyperinsulinism;
(19)(18) Muscular dystrophy;
(20)(19) Arteriosclerosis;
(21)(20) Thrombophlebitis;
(22)(21) Varicose Veins;
(23)(22) Heavy metal poisoning;
(24)(23) Ionizing radiation injury;
(25)(24) Compressed air sequelae;
(26)(25) Ruptured intervertebral disc;
(27)(26) Hodgkins disease;
(28)(27) Brain damage;
(29)(28) Deafness;
(30)(29) Cancer;
(31)(30) Sickle-cell anemia;
(32)(31) Pulmonary disease;
(33)(32) Mental retardation provided the employee's intelligence quotient is such that he falls within the lowest percentile of the general population. However, it shall not be necessary for the employer to know the employee's actual intelligence quotient or actual relative ranking in relation to the intelligence quotient of the general population.
(34) Any other pre-existing disease, condition or impairment which is permanent in nature and which:
(a) Would qualify for payment of weekly disability benefits of seventy-eight weeks or more under Section 42-9-30 exclusive of benefits payable for disfigurement; or
(b) Would support a rating of seventy-eight or more weeks of weekly disability benefits when evaluated according to the standards applied to Workers' Compensation claims in South Carolina, or combines with a subsequent injury to cause a permanent impairment rated at seventy-eight weeks or more under Section 42-9-30.
(e) The Second Injury Fund shall not be bound as to any question of law or fact by reason of any compensation agreement, settlement, award, and adjudication to which it was not a party, or in relation to which it was not notified at least twenty days prior to a hearing on liability that it might be subject to liability for the injury or death.
(f) An employer or his carrier shall must notify the Industrial Commission Workers' Compensation Commission and the Director of the Second Injury Fund in writing of any possible claim against the fund as soon as practicable but in no event later than after the payment of the first seventy-eight weeks of compensation. This written notice must provide the:
(i) date of accident;
(ii) employee's name;
(iii) employer's name and address;
(iv) insurance carrier's name, address, and the National Council on Compensation Insurance code; and
(v) insurance carrier's claim number, policy number, and policy effective date. The carrier claim number is the unique identifier a carrier uses throughout the life of a claim to report that claim to the National Council on Compensation Insurance. Failure to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall bar an employer or his carrier from recovery from the fund.
(g) If the employee has a permanent physical impairment, as defined in this section and the prerequisites for reimbursement have been met, and if it can be shown that the subsequent injury most
(i) The Second Injury Fund is entitled to a credit for sums recovered by the employer or his workers' compensation carrier from third parties, after the employer or his workers' compensation carrier have been reimbursed for the moneys paid out by them and not reimbursed by the fund.
(j) The Second Injury Fund can enter into compromise settlements at the discretion of the director with approval of a majority of the Industrial Commission Workers' Compensation Commission, provided a bona fide dispute exists.
(k) Any employer operating in violation of Section 42-5-20 is not eligible for reimbursement from the South Carolina Second Injury Fund.
(l) As a prerequisite to reimbursement from the fund, the insurer shall be required to certify that the medical and indemnity reserves have been reduced to the threshold limits of reimbursement and report in accordance with the National Council on Compensation Insurance Workers' Compensation Statistical Plan.
(m) The Second Injury Fund Director must quarterly submit to the National Council on Compensation Insurance information regarding Second Injury Fund accepted claims.
(n) The National Council on Compensation Insurance must submit a report of any discrepancies pursuant to regulations established by the Department of Insurance. The Department of Insurance is directed to establish regulations concerning Second Injury Fund discrepancies."
SECTION 4. Section 42-7-200 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 42-7-200. (A)(1) There is hereby established, within the office of the Second Injury Fund, the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Uninsured Employers' Fund. This fund is created to
(2) There is hereby established, within the office of the State Accident Fund, the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Uninsured Employers' Fund. This fund is created to ensure payment of workers' compensation benefits to injured employees whose employers have failed to acquire necessary coverage for employees in accordance with provisions of this section. The fund must be administered by the Director of the State Accident Fund, who shall establish procedures to implement this section. This subitem is effective as of July 1, 2013."
(B) When an employee makes a claim for benefits pursuant to Title 42 and the State Workers' Compensation Commission determines that the employer is subject to Title 42 and is operating without insurance or as an unqualified self-insurer, the commission shall notify the fund of the claim. The fund shall pay or defend the claim as it considers necessary in accordance with the provisions of Title 42.
(C) When the fund is notified of a claim, the fund may place a lien on the assets of the employer by way of lis pendens or otherwise so as to protect the fund from payments of costs and benefits. If the fund is required to incur costs or expenses or to pay benefits, the fund has a lien against the assets of the employer to the full extent of all costs, expenses, and benefits paid and may file notice of the lien with the clerk of court or register of deeds of any county in which the employer has assets in the same manner as the filing of South Carolina tax liens and with the Secretary of State in the same manner as utilized under Title 36 (Uniform Commercial Code). Any of the employer's assets
(D) The fund has all rights of attachment set forth in Section 15-19-10 and has the right to proceed otherwise in the collection of its lien in the same manner as the Department of Revenue is allowed to enforce a collection of taxes generally pursuant to Section 12-49-10, et seq. When all benefits due the claimant, as well as all expenses and costs of litigation, have been paid, the fund shall file notice of the total of all monies paid with the clerk of court in any county in which the employer has assets and with the Secretary of State. This notice constitutes a judgment against the employer and has priority as a first lien in the same manner as liens of the Department of Revenue, subject only to the lien of the Department of Revenue pursuant to Section 12-49-10, et seq. If the employer files for bankruptcy or otherwise is placed into receivership, the fund becomes a secured creditor to the assets of the employer in the same manner as the Department of Revenue has priority for unpaid taxes, subject only to the lien of the Department of Revenue. The fund otherwise has all rights and remedies afforded the Department of Revenue as set forth in Section 12-54-10, et seq.
(B)(E) Nothing in this section precludes the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Uninsured Employers' Fund from entering into an agreement for the reimbursement of expenses, costs, or benefits paid by the fund. If an agreement is entered into subsequent to the filing of a lien, the lien may be canceled by the fund. Provided, however, an agreement between the fund and an employer under this section may provide that in the event the employer breaches the terms or conditions of the agreement, the fund may file or reinstate a lien, as the case may be. For purposes of this section, the term "costs" includes reasonable administrative costs which must be set by the director of the Second Injury Fund fund, subject to the approval of the Workers' Compensation Commission.
(C)(F) To establish and maintain the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Uninsured Employers' Fund, there must be earmarked from the collections of the tax on insurance carriers and self-insured persons provided for in Sections 38-7-50 and 42-5-190 an amount sufficient to establish and annually maintain the fund at a level of not less than two hundred thousand dollars. In addition, the State Treasurer may deposit to the account of the fund monies authorized to be paid to the Workers' Compensation Commission under Section
(D)(G) When an employee makes a claim for benefits pursuant to Title 42 and the records of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission indicate that the employer is operating without insurance, the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Uninsured Employers' Fund or any person designated by the director may subpoena the employer or its agents and require the production of any documents or records which the fund considers relevant to its investigation of the claim. The subpoena shall be returnable at the office of the fund or any place designated by it. In the case of refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any person or agent of any employer, a court of common pleas upon application of the fund may issue an order requiring the person or agent of an employer to appear at the fund and produce documentary evidence or give other evidence concerning the matter under inquiry."
SECTION 5. Article 3, Chapter 7, Title 42 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 42-7-320. (A) Except as otherwise provided in this section, on and after July 1, 2013, the programs and appropriations of the Second Injury Fund are terminated. The Budget and Control Board must provide for the efficient and expeditious closure of the fund with the orderly winding down of the affairs of the fund so that the remaining liabilities of the fund are paid utilizing assessments, accelerated assessments, annuities, loss portfolio transfers, or such other mechanisms as are reasonably determined necessary to fund any remaining liabilities of the fund. The Department of Insurance and Workers' Compensation Commission may submit comments and suggestions to be considered by the Budget and Control Board in planning for the closure of the fund. The Budget and Control Board shall cause all necessary actions to be taken to provide appropriate staffing of the fund until such time as the staff services are no longer required to administer the obligations of the fund. The fund's administrative costs, including employee salaries and benefits, shall be paid from the Second Injury Fund Trust if the interest from the trust becomes insufficient to pay these obligations.
(B) After December 31, 2011, the Second Injury Fund shall not accept a claim for reimbursement from any employer, self-insurer, or insurance carrier. The fund shall not consider a claim for reimbursement for an injury that occurs on or after July 1, 2008.
(1) An employer, self-insurer, or insurance carrier must notify the Second Injury Fund of a potential claim by December 31, 2010.
(2) An employer, self-insurer, or insurance carrier must submit all required information for consideration of accepting a claim to the Second Injury Fund by June 30, 2011. Failure to submit all required information to the fund by June 30, 2011, so that the claim can be accepted, compromised, or denied shall bar an employer, self-insurer, or insurance carrier from recovery from the fund.
(3) Insurance carriers, self-insurers, and the State Accident Fund remain liable for Second Injury Fund assessments, as determined by the Budget and Control Board, in order to pay accepted claims. The fund shall continue reimbursing employers and insurance carriers for claims accepted by the fund on or before December 31, 2011."
SECTION 6. On or before January 15, 2014, the Code Commissioner shall prepare and deliver a report to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of all code references and cross-references which he considers in need of correction, modification, or repeal insofar as the 1976 Code has been affected by this act. The Code Commissioner also is directed to include in his report how to provide adequate notice to alert code users to the status of the provisions concerning the Second Injury Fund as the fund continues to do business pending its termination.
SECTION 1. Section 38-73-520 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 38-73-520. Every insurer shall must file with the department, except as to exempt commercial policies, every manual of classifications, rules, and rates, every rating plan, and every modification of any of these which it proposes to use. The filing exemption shall not apply to loss cost filings by advisory or rating organizations or to the multiplier for expenses, assessments, profit, and contingencies and any modifications to loss costs used by a workers' compensation insurer to be applied to approved loss costs to develop the insurer's rates as provided in Section 38-73-525. Every filing shall must state the proposed effective date and shall indicate the character and extent of the coverage contemplated."
SECTION 2. Chapter 73, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 38-73-525. At least thirty days prior to using new rates, every insurer writing workers' compensation must file its multiplier for
SECTION 3. Section 38-73-960 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 38-73-960. The director or his or her designee shall must review filings as soon as reasonably possible after they have been made in order to determine whether they meet the requirements of this chapter. Subject to the exceptions specified in Sections 38-73-965, 38-73-970, and 38-73-980, each filing must be on file for a waiting period of sixty days before it becomes effective. This period may be extended by the director or his or her designee for an additional period not to exceed sixty days if he or she gives written notice within the waiting period to the insurer or rating organization which made the filing that he or she needs additional time for the consideration of the filing. Upon written application by the insurer or rating organization, the director or his or her designee may authorize a filing which he or she has reviewed to become effective before the expiration of the waiting period or any extension thereof. A filing meets the requirements of this chapter unless disapproved by the director or his or her designee within the waiting period or any extension thereof."
SECTION 4. Chapter 73, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 38-73-965. A filing made pursuant to Section 38-73-525 is governed by the effective dates specified in that section."
SECTION 5. Section 38-73-990 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 38-73-990. If Except as provided in Section 38-73-995, if within the waiting period or any extension thereof as provided in Section 38-73-960 the director or his or her designee finds that a filing or a part of a filing does not meet the requirements of this chapter, he shall or she must send to the insurer or rating organization which made the filing written notice of disapproval of the filing or part of a filing specifying therein in what respects he or she finds the filing or part thereof fails to meet the requirements of this chapter and stating that the filing or the part may not become effective."
SECTION 6. Chapter 73, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 38-73-995. An insurer's workers' compensation rates developed using its most recent multiplier for expenses, assessments, profit, and contingencies and any modifications to loss costs may be disapproved at any time after they become effective if the director or his or her designee determines that they do not meet the requirements of this chapter."
SECTION 7. Chapter 73, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 38-73-526. The director or his or her designee must issue a report to the General Assembly by the first of January each year that evaluates the state of the workers' compensation insurance market in this State. The report must contain an analysis of the availability and affordability of workers' compensation coverage and document that the department has complied with the provisions of Sections 38-73-430 and 38-73-525 with regard to both workers' compensation loss cost filings submitted by an advisory or rating organization and multiplier filings submitted by every insurer writing workers' compensation insurance."
SECTION 1. If any section, subsection, item, subitem, 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
SECTION 2. Except as otherwise provided for in this act, this act takes effect July 1, 2007 or, if ratified after July 1, 2007 and except otherwise stated, upon approval by the Governor and applies to injuries that occur on or after this date. /
Amend title to conform.
Sen. Larry A. Martin Rep. Harry F. Cato Sen. C. Bradley Hutto Rep. Converse A. Chellis III Sen. James H. Ritchie, Jr. Rep. Nikki Randhawa Haley On Part of the Senate. On Part of the House.
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R124) H. 3045 (Word version) -- Reps. Cooper, Cobb-Hunter, Umphlett, Mahaffey, Sandifer, G. R. Smith, Hamilton, Davenport, Mitchell, Miller, Battle, Thompson, J. R. Smith, J. H. Neal, M. A. Pitts, Cotty, Ballentine, Haley, Ceips, Funderburk, Brady, White, Kirsh, Jefferson, Vick, McLeod, Harrell, Littlejohn, Lucas, Branham, Delleney, Bowen, Gambrell, Gullick and Sellers: AN ACT TO ENACT THE "VOLUNTEER STRATEGIC ASSISTANCE AND FIRE EQUIPMENT PILOT PROGRAM (V-SAFE)" WHOSE PURPOSE, CONTINGENT UPON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATING APPROPRIATE FUNDS, IS TO OFFER GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE VOLUNTEER AND COMBINATION FIRED DEPARTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND REGIONAL RESPONSE AREAS FROM INCIDENTS OF FIRE, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, TERRORISM, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE SAFETY OF VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS, TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE GRANTS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PILOT PROGRAM WILL CEASE TO EXIST ON JUNE 30, 2008; AND TO AMEND SECTION 23-9-10, CODE OF LAWS OF
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Anderson Anthony Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Dantzler Delleney Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Owens Parks
Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Weeks Whipper White 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.
I was temporarily out of the Chamber in a Conference Committee meeting during the Veto vote on H. 3045. Had I been present, I would have voted to override the Veto.
Rep. Robert Walker
I was temporarily out of the Chamber in a Conference Committee meeting during the Veto vote on H. 3045. If I had been present, I would have voted to override the Veto.
Rep. William R. Whitmire
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R150) H. 4178 (Word version) -- Reps. Gambrell, Hiott and Moss: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A MEDICAID TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TO PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERS, POWERS, AND DUTIES, INCLUDING RESOLVING ISSUES AND COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE MEDICAID TRANSPORTATION BROKERAGE SYSTEM, AND
Rep. GAMBRELL explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Ballentine Bannister Barfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Edge Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scott Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith Spires Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Vick Walker Weeks
Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Battle Bedingfield Brantley Delleney Hagood Hamilton Kennedy Knight Limehouse Loftis Scarborough Shoopman G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Stavrinakis Umphlett
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 2007
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Senators Setzler, O'Dell and Alexander of the Committee of Conference on the part of the Senate on H. 3749:
H. 3749 (Word version) -- Reps. W. D. Smith, Mitchell, Kelly, Littlejohn, Mahaffey, Moss, Phillips, Talley and Walker: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-10-80, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JOB DEVELOPMENT CREDITS, SO AS TO ALLOW A TAXPAYER WHO QUALIFIES FOR THE JOB DEVELOPMENT CREDIT AND WHO IS LOCATED IN A MULTI-COUNTY BUSINESS OR INDUSTRIAL PARK TO RECEIVE A CREDIT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT DESIGNATED TO THE COUNTY WITH THE LOWEST DEVELOPMENT STATUS OF THE COUNTIES CONTAINING THE PARK IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 2007
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the Veto by the Governor on R. 111, S. 243 by a vote of 40 to 2:
(R111) S. 243 (Word version) -- Senators Setzler, Leatherman, Fair and Elliott: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 46 TO TITLE 11 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE "SOUTH CAROLINA HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND", TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA RESEARCH AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER GRANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION, TO ALLOW THE FUND TO RECEIVE DONATIONS, GRANTS, AND OTHER FUNDING AS PROVIDED BY LAW, TO REQUIRE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO APPROPRIATE A SPECIFIC AMOUNT FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF THE STATE TO THE FUND, AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES TO CONSIDER PURCHASING EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY OPERATED BY HYDROGEN OR FUEL CELLS OR BOTH OF THEM; BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-3630 SO AS TO ALLOW A CREDIT AGAINST THE INCOME TAX, LICENSE FEES, OR INSURANCE PREMIUM TAXES FOR QUALIFIED CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO THE FUND; TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO ALLOW A SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR EQUIPMENT OR MACHINERY OPERATED BY HYDROGEN OR FUEL CELLS OR USED TO DISTRIBUTE HYDROGEN AND FOR EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY USED PREDOMINATELY FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING HYDROGEN OR FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES, AND TO ALLOW A SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR BUILDING MATERIALS, MACHINERY, OR EQUIPMENT USED TO CONSTRUCT A NEW OR RENOVATED BUILDING LOCATED IN A RESEARCH DISTRICT; BY ADDING SECTION 12-14-80 SO AS TO ALLOW AN ECONOMIC IMPACT ZONE TAX CREDIT AGAINST THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX OR EMPLOYEES' WITHHOLDING TAX TO A MANUFACTURER
Very respectfully,
President
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
June 14, 2007
The Honorable André Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, 1st Floor, East Wing
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval S. 243, R. 111.
S. 243 (Word version) began as a five page Bill making changes intended to improve the prospects for an enhanced hydrogen-based economy in South Carolina. In its current form, the Bill has more than quadrupled in size and contains numerous items totally unrelated to the hydrogen debate - including two sections that I vetoed in S. 91. In the veto message of S. 91, I detail my concerns of that Bill, but in as much as they are attached in this Bill, let me reiterate this administration's view. We believe a more coordinated approach to economic development - as envisioned by Carroll Campbell with economic development legislation vetted by a Department of Commerce - is key to fully exploring all the ramifications of an economic development piece of legislation and is also key to fully utilizing the limited resources we have for economic development. Add-on Bills like those found in S. 91, with significant ramifications in setting precedent for future economic development deals, could be avoided if we adhered to this process, and is largely the reason that I veto this legislation.
However, I think there are some issues related to hydrogen research that we believe need some deeper consideration as well, and I would like to raise them.
Hydrogen is still an unproven commercial endeavor and, as such, I believe we should be very measured and deliberate in taxpayer commitments. With hydrogen, we've been supportive in many areas, but it is our option that this Bill goes beyond this zone of deliberate investment in unproven technology.
We committed more than $3.6 million in recurring state funds for hydrogen-related projects in this year's budget and $1 million for fuel cell research at USC. We have also been very supportive of Fred Humes and his group spring-boarding off of some of the work done at the Savannah River Site - where we also committed over $400,000 to
We have stopped here, though, for three reasons.
One, we don't believe it's wise to put all your eggs in one basket. Rather than funding hydrogen research to the exclusion of other efforts, we proposed in our Executive Budget similarly modest - but targeted - investments in automotive research at Clemson and medical research at MUSC.
Two, we don't believe it's the role of government to "lead" the private sector. Japan tried it and failed in the 1970's with the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Korea tried it and failed in the 1980's with cars and steel. I believe it's foolish to think that government can pick the "winning" industry of tomorrow and beat the marketplace and private capital.
I'm as hopeful as anyone that hydrogen could be the answer to the CO2 emissions problem our world faces. It's telling, however, that Joseph Romm, the chief of conservation and renewable energy in the Clinton Energy Department, wrote very bluntly in his book, The Hype About Hydrogen, that, "It makes no sense for any state to risk millions on the fledgling hydrogen business now."
Private industries are investing in hydrogen-based power. British Petroleum recently spent $3.5 million on a single hydrogen transport project in Beijing, and General Electric has invested similar sums in hydrogen-based projects. These and other companies are also investing in many other forms of power generation, though, and that fact alone ought to give us pause. These multi-national corporations - which have a far greater incentive to invest their money wisely than the state and federal governments do - aren't yet convinced that hydrogen power is the future and are diversifying their investments accordingly.
It needs to be remembered that right now it costs about $40,000 to fill the hydrogen tank of one of Honda's experimental hydrogen-based vehicles.
Finally, we believe that when government does invest in developing technologies, public monies should be matched with significant private investment. This is what makes the Aiken hydrogen work compelling for our administration - or, for that matter, the automotive work in
In this vein, consider the "Restorative Institute" that has already gotten over $13 million of our tax dollars down in Charleston. In our many deliberations with Clemson, representatives have assured us that private monies will be forthcoming. I have consistently made the counterpoint that there is not a big market in restoring Confederate-era submarines, and that it is dangerous for us to get into the practice Kevin Costner used in the movie Field of Dreams of building it in the hope that "they will come." Costner's character hoped for the return of long dead baseball players, and in our current situation, private capital may appear just as ephemeral in these "research" enterprises if all of us are not vigilant in looking at quantifiable returns on these significant public investments.
In short, along with the concerns noted on the other provisions in this Bill, we have significant reservations about this level of public investment in hydrogen research without more quantifiable returns to the taxpayer. I do applaud the Bill's sponsors, not only for focusing on the possibility of breakthrough technologies, but on technology that could materially reduce CO2 emissions in South Carolina. We have joined this debate from a different vantage point in forming the Climate, Energy, and Commerce Committee to look at market-based options to do the same. This is a worthy debate and, whether this Bill is passed or not, it will inevitably be of increasing importance over the years ahead.
For the reasons detailed above, I am compelled to veto S. 243, R. 111.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R111) S. 243 (Word version) -- Senators Setzler, Leatherman, Fair and Elliott: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 46 TO TITLE 11 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE "SOUTH CAROLINA HYDROGEN
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips
Chalk Chellis Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Scarborough Scott Shoopman Simrill Skelton G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Taylor Thompson Umphlett Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Hagood
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R159) H. 3304 (Word version) -- Reps. J. M. Neal, McLeod, Branham, Chalk, Frye, Gambrell, Littlejohn, Lucas, Mulvaney, Neilson, Rice, Spires, Viers and Agnew: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 44-61-80, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO ALSO REQUIRE AN APPLICANT FOR CERTIFICATION, OR RECERTIFICATION, TO UNDERGO A CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-620, RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR TAKING DNA SAMPLES FROM PERSONS AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES, SO AS TO DELETE THESE PROVISIONS AND TO REQUIRE DNA SAMPLES TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING ARREST OR INDICTMENT FOR CERTAIN FELONIES; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-630, RELATING TO MEDICAL PERSONNEL TAKING DNA SAMPLES, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT MEDICAL PERSONNEL MUST TAKE DNA SAMPLES AND TO PROVIDE THAT AN APPROPRIATELY TRAINED PERSON MAY TAKE SUCH SAMPLES; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-650, RELATING TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY, STORAGE, AND RELEASE OF DNA SAMPLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES TO PREVENT TAKING DUPLICATE DNA SAMPLES; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-660, RELATING TO EXPUNGEMENT OF DNA RECORDS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE EXPUNGEMENT WHEN CHARGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED AND TO PROVIDE THAT NO COSTS FOR EXPUNGEMENT MAY BE CHARGED TO THE PERSON SEEKING EXPUNGEMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-670, RELATING TO THE DNA SAMPLE PROCESSING FEE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SUCH FEE MUST BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PERSON AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING; AND TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-120, RELATING TO FINGERPRINTING PERSONS WHO ARE ARRESTED, SO AS TO FURTHER SPECIFY THAT SUCH FINGERPRINTING MUST BE CONDUCTED AT THE TIME THE PERSON IS BOOKED AND PROCESSED INTO A JAIL OR DETENTION FACILITY.
Rep. J. M. NEAL explained the Veto.
Rep. MCLEOD continued speaking.
Rep. J. M. NEAL spoke against the Veto.
Rep. OWENS spoke against the Veto.
Rep. CRAWFORD spoke in favor of the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anthony Bales Bannister Bingham Bowen Brady G. Brown Ceips Chalk Chellis Cotty Duncan Edge Funderburk Gambrell Gullick Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Jennings Knight Limehouse Lucas McLeod Merrill Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Owens Perry Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Skelton J. R. Smith Taylor Vick Whitmire Young
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Ballentine Battle Bedingfield Bowers Brantley Breeland R. Brown Cato Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Crawford Dantzler Davenport Delleney Frye Govan Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Hart Harvin Haskins Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Mack Mahaffey Miller Mulvaney J. H. Neal Ott Parks E. H. Pitts Rutherford Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill F. N. Smith G. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Thompson Umphlett Weeks Whipper White Williams Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R123) H. 3034 (Word version) -- Reps. Brady, Haskins, Cobb-Hunter, Cotty, Funderburk, Hagood, Stavrinakis, Gullick, Bowers, Whipper, Bales and Neilson: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION ACT OF 2007, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8 TO CHAPTER 52, TITLE 48, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF "GREEN
Rep. CATO explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clyburn Cooper Cotty Crawford Dantzler Delleney Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Pinson E. H. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough
Scott Sellers Skelton F. N. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Thompson Toole Vick Walker Weeks Whipper Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bedingfield Davenport Duncan Kirsh Loftis Perry M. A. Pitts Rice Shoopman Simrill G. R. Smith Umphlett White
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Pursuant to the provisions of House Rule 7.8, Rep. JENNINGS cast a proxy vote on behalf of Rep. J. E. SMITH to override the Veto on H. 3034.
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R128) H. 3239 (Word version) -- Reps. Funderburk, Cato and Mahaffey: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION TO EXPEND UP TO FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OF THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE UNDER SECTION 903 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING LAND ON WHICH TO ERECT A BUILDING FOR USE BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chellis Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Davenport Delleney Funderburk Gambrell Gullick Hardwick Harrell Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jennings Kelly Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Moss J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Sellers Skelton J. R. Smith Talley Taylor Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Bedingfield Ceips Cotty Duncan Hagood Limehouse Mulvaney M. A. Pitts Scarborough Thompson
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R162) H. 4164 (Word version) -- Reps. Bowers and Brantley: AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND VOTER REGISTRATION OF HAMPTON COUNTY AND PROVIDE FOR THE NUMBER AND MANNER OF APPOINTMENT OF ITS MEMBERS, TERMS, FILLING OF VACANCIES, ELECTION OF THE BOARD'S CHAIRMAN, THE CHAIRMAN'S TERM OF OFFICE, AND RELATED MATTERS; TO ABOLISH THE HAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF VOTER REGISTRATION AND DEVOLVE ITS FUNCTIONS, DUTIES, AND POWERS UPON THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND VOTER REGISTRATION OF HAMPTON COUNTY; TO ABOLISH THE HAMPTON COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION AND DEVOLVE ITS FUNCTIONS, DUTIES, AND POWERS UPON THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND VOTER REGISTRATION OF HAMPTON COUNTY; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT TERMS OF OFFICE FOR CERTAIN PERSONS.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Bowers Brantley Parks Whipper
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. CLYBURN moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, which was agreed to.
Rep. HOSEY moved that the House do now adjourn, which was agreed to.
The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:
H. 4268 (Word version) -- Rep. Moss: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND MRS. NANCY K. PERRY OF LEXINGTON COUNTY FOR HER EXCELLENCE AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHILDREN'S HOME AND FAMILY SERVICES, AND TO EXPRESS THE GRATITUDE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR HER MANY YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF THIS GREAT STATE.
H. 4269 (Word version) -- Rep. Huggins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE C. L. "DUCK" AND SALLY KINARD OF LEXINGTON COUNTY ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR FIFTIETH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES FOR MANY MORE YEARS OF BLESSING AND FULFILLMENT.
H. 4270 (Word version) -- Rep. Vick: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE PROFOUND SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY UPON THE DEATH OF MRS. MARTHA ELIZABETH CHAMBERS MELTON KOLLOCK OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AND TO EXTEND THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HER FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
At 5:35 p.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of the Charleston Delegation, adjourned in memory of Rodney Bradford "Brad" Baity, Theodore Michael "Mike" Benke, Melven E. Champaign, James "Earl" Drayton, Michael J. French, William "Billy" Hutchinson, Mark W. Kelsey, Louis M. Mulkey and Brandon K. Thompson, the nine Charleston firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty, to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Monday, June 22, 2009 at 1:39 P.M.