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 8:4: "What are human beings that you are mindful of them? And mortals that you care for them?"
Let us pray. Lord, help us to be faithful stewards of all that You have created. You indeed have crowned us with glory and honor. You have made us in Your image, to care for Your marvelous creation. Use us as Your stewards in helping other people in their daily life. As we approach the end of this Session, keep these Representatives focused on their duty and responsibility to the people of this State. Bless our Nation, President, State, Governor, Speaker, this Honorable Assembly, and all who serve in these Halls of Government. Protect our defenders of freedom at home and abroad as they protect us. Hear us as 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 Friday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
Rep. HERBKERSMAN moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Joshua George of Bluffton, which was agreed to.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 1115:
S. 1115 (Word version) --Senators Leventis, Land, Ford, Anderson, Hutto, Malloy, Matthews, Williams, Peeler, Short, Sheheen, Drummond, Jackson, Ceips and Lourie: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-112-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO IN-STATE TUITION AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL AND THEIR DEPENDENTS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THESE PERSONNEL AND THEIR DEPENDENTS ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE AND RETAIN IN-STATE TUITION RATES.
and has ordered the Bill enrolled for ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 970:
S. 970 (Word version) --Senator Hutto: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-29-135, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE RECORDS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO NOTIFY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT AND SCHOOL NURSE IF A MINOR IS ATTENDING A SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT AND HAS ACQUIRED IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME OR IS INFECTED WITH THE HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS.
and has ordered the Bill enrolled for ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 1232:
S. 1232 (Word version) --Senators Cleary, Rankin and Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 4 TO CHAPTER 10 OF TITLE 4, ENACTING THE "EDUCATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SALES AND USE TAX ACT" SO AS TO ALLOW A ONE PERCENT LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX TO BE IMPOSED IN A COUNTY FOR NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS UPON REFERENDUM APPROVAL WITH THE REVENUES OF THE TAX USED BY THE COUNTY'S SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO PAY FOR SPECIFIC PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE COUNTY AND TO PROVIDE A METHOD WHEREBY REVENUE OF THE TAX MAY BE SHARED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SPECIFIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ON THE CAMPUSES OF A TECHNICAL COLLEGE OR OTHER STATE INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING LOCATED IN THE COUNTY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE REFERENDUM REQUIRED FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX, THE DURATION OF THE TAX, NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN YEARS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE REVENUE.
and has ordered the Bill enrolled for ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
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. 274, H. 3649 by a vote of 42 to 1:
(R274, H3649 (Word version)) --Reps. Witherspoon, Merrill, Agnew, Anthony, Brady, R. Brown, Duncan, Funderburk, Hagood, Hardwick, Herbkersman, Hiott, Kelly, Loftis, Moss, Ott, E.H. Pitts, Scott, Talley, Toole, Umphlett, Cobb-Hunter, Leach, Cato, Clemmons, Barfield, Ceips, Dantzler, Hamilton, Howard, Jefferson, Lowe, Phillips, G.R. Smith, J.R. Smith, Stavrinakis, Bannister, J.H. Neal, Stewart, Sellers, Mitchell, Williams, G.M. Smith and Mahaffey: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-63-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX REBATES ON ECOLOGICALLY FRIENDLY VEHICLES AND INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL PURCHASE AND PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY OR METHANE GAS, SO AS TO DELETE THE SALES TAX REBATE ON FLEXIBLE FUEL VEHICLES, TO SHORTEN THE TIME PERIOD THE ALTERNATIVE FUEL PURCHASE INCENTIVE IS AVAILABLE, TO BROADEN THE INCENTIVE PAYMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY OR METHANE GAS FUEL, TO REPLACE "METHANE GAS FUEL" WITH "ENERGY", AND TO DELETE THE LIMITATIONS ON THE INCENTIVE AMOUNTS; TO AMEND SECTION 46-3-260, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND AND LOW INTEREST LOANS AND GRANTS, SO AS TO EXPAND THE PURVIEW OF THE MATCHING GRANTS FOR NEW AND FUTURE BIOMASS TECHNOLOGIES TO INCLUDE SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL, WIND ENERGY, AND SMALL HYDROPOWER TECHNOLOGIES AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RATHER THAN THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MAY ADMINISTER THE FUND AND COORDINATE ITS EFFORTS WITH THE STATE ENERGY OFFICE; TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3600, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO TAX CREDITS FOR AN ETHANOL AND BIODIESEL FACILITY, SO AS TO EXTEND THE TAX CREDIT TO 2017, TO ALLOW THE TAXPAYER TO CLAIM THE CREDIT FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO QUALIFYING FOR THE CURRENT TAXABLE YEAR; TO ALLOW UNUSED CREDIT TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR TEN YEARS, TO REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE STATE ENERGY OFFICE RATHER THAN THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AND TO REQUIRE EACH TAXPAYER TO SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE STATE ENERGY OFFICE WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3610, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO TAX CREDITS FOR THE COST OF PURCHASING AND INSTALLING PROPERTY TO DISTRIBUTE AND DISPENSE RENEWABLE FUELS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "RENEWABLE FUEL" FOR CERTAIN TAXPAYERS WHO PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCT QUALIFYING FACILITIES OR COMMERCIAL FACILITIES, TO DELETE THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR LIMIT, AND TO REQUIRE EACH TAXPAYER TO SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE STATE ENERGY OFFICE WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3620, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO TAX CREDITS FOR THE COST OF METHANE GAS USE, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO METHANE GAS, TO END THE TAX CREDIT ALLOWABLE FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN ENERGY-CREATING FUELS WITH NO LESS THAN NINETY PERCENT BIOMASS RESOURCE, TO ALLOW THE STATE ENERGY OFFICE TO CONSULT WITH OTHER SPECIFIED AGENCIES TO CERTIFY THE COSTS OF THE TAXPAYER, TO PROVIDE PARAMETERS FOR THE TAX CREDIT, TO REDEFINE "BIOMASS RESOURCE", AND TO REQUIRE EACH TAXPAYER TO SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE STATE ENERGY OFFICE WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3631, RELATING TO THE BIODIESEL EXPENDITURES TAX CREDIT, SO AS TO EXPAND THE DEFINITIONS OF "QUALIFIED EXPENDITURES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT" AND "CELLULOSIC ETHANOL" AND TO REQUIRE EACH TAXPAYER TO SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE STATE ENERGY OFFICE WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received from the Senate:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it nonconcurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 691:
S. 691 (Word version) --Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-170, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR BUYING, SELLING, OR DISPLAYING FOR SALE CARCASSES OR PARTS OF WILD RABBITS IN GAME ZONES 2 AND 4, SO AS TO MAKE SUCH CONDUCT UNLAWFUL STATEWIDE AND TO INCREASE THE PENALTY TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS; BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-300 SO AS TO DESIGNATE WHICH SPECIES CONSTITUTE BIG GAME; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-520, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE STUDY OF GAME ZONES RESTOCKED WITH WILD TURKEYS AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO SET OPEN AND CLOSED SEASONS ON MALE WILD TURKEYS, SO AS TO ALSO ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT TO SET OTHER OPEN AND CLOSED SEASONS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-565, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE USE OF CROSS BOWS, SO AS TO STRIKE THE ENTIRE SECTION AND PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF ARCHERY EQUIPMENT AS USED IN THIS TITLE; TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-385, RELATING TO THE MINIMUM SIZE OF LARGEMOUTH BASS FROM LAKES MARION, MOULTRIE, AND WYLIE THAT A PERSON MAY TAKE OR POSSESS, SO AS TO INCLUDE ALL OF LAKE WYLIE INSTEAD OF THE PORTION OF LAKE WYLIE LOCATED IN YORK COUNTY AND IN GAME ZONE 4; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-708, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHTS TO OBSERVE OR HARASS WILDLIFE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A LESSEE MAY USE ARTIFICIAL LIGHTS TO PROTECT HIS PROPERTY; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-125, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON SWIMMING NEAR A PUBLIC BOAT LANDING OR RAMP IN THE VICINITY OF A HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION UTILITY AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NO WAKE ZONE, SO AS TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ISSUE AND POST SIGNS IN THE NO WAKE ZONE INFORMING THE PUBLIC OF THE NO WAKE ZONE; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-180, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF RIDING SURFBOARDS NEAR FISHING PIERS IN GAME ZONE 7 AND GEORGETOWN COUNTY, SO AS TO MAKE SUCH CONDUCT UNLAWFUL STATEWIDE; TO REPEAL SECTION 50-3-360 RELATING TO ADDITIONAL DEPUTY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FOR GAME ZONE 2; TO REPEAL SECTION 50-11-30 RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO REGULATE WILD TURKEY HUNTING; TO REPEAL SECTION 50-11-550 RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE OF A WEAPON OTHER THAN A SHOTGUN DURING CERTAIN TIMES OF YEAR IN CERTAIN AREAS; TO REPEAL SECTION 50-13-20 RELATING TO LAWFUL METHODS OF CATCHING FISH IN CERTAIN LAKES AND BOYD'S MILL POND IN GAME ZONE 2; TO REPEAL SECTION 50-13-65 RELATING TO AUTHORIZATION OF CLOSED SEASON ON STREAMS IN GAME ZONE 1; TO REPEAL SECTION 50-13-90 RELATING TO CLOSED SEASON ON TROUT; TO REPEAL SECTION 50-13-980 RELATING TO PRESUMPTION FROM POSSESSION OF FISH IN EXCESS OF LEGAL LIMITS; TO REPEAL SECTION 50-13-1010 RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE 6; TO REPEAL SECTION 50-13-1020 AND CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; TO REPEAL SECTION 50-19-2220 RELATING TO CERTAIN WATERS OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER; TO REPEAL SECTION 50-19-2230 RELATING TO AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO FISHING REGULATIONS IN CERTAIN WATERS OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 50-19-3010 RELATING TO LAWFUL METHODS FOR CATCHING FISH IN FAIRFOREST CREEK IN UNION AND SPARTANBURG COUNTIES.
Very respectfully,
President
On motion of Rep. WITHERSPOON, the House insisted upon its amendments.
Whereupon, the Chair appointed Reps. M. A. PITTS, FRYE and LOWE to the Committee of Conference on the part of the House and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was introduced:
H. 5240 (Word version) --Reps. Brady and Neilson: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR THE CARDINAL NEWMAN HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY SOFTBALL TEAM OF RICHLAND COUNTY FOR A SUCCESSFUL SEASON AND TO CONGRATULATE THE PLAYERS AND THEIR COACHES FOR CAPTURING THE SOUTH CAROLINA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (SCISAA) CLASS 3A CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 5241 (Word version) --Reps. Scott, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Chalk, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Daning, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Erickson, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Hutson, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss, Mulvaney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Sellers, Shoopman, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO HONOR CYNTHANIA SIMPSON-OBIOHA FOR TWENTY-THREE YEARS OF SERVICE AS A TEACHER TO THE CHILDREN OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO CONGRATULATE HER UPON BEING NAMED THE 2008-2009 W. J. KEENAN HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER OF THE YEAR.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 5242 (Word version) --Rep. Brantley: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR DENNIS THOMPSON FOR HIS SUCCESSFUL LEADERSHIP AS SUPERINTENDENT OF HAMPTON SCHOOL DISTRICT TWO, AND TO WISH HIM WELL, UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT, AFTER THIRTY-SIX YEARS AS AN EDUCATOR IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 5243 (Word version) --Rep. Davenport: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE THE OAKBROOK PREPARATORY SCHOOL "LADY KNIGHTS" SOCCER TEAM OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY ON ITS OUTSTANDING SEASON AND IMPRESSIVE WIN OF THE 2008 SOUTH CAROLINA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ASSOCIATION CLASS 1A/2A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 5244 (Word version) --Reps. Hodges, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Chalk, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Daning, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Erickson, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Hutson, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss, Mulvaney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sellers, Shoopman, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE GRATITUDE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO MR. WILLIAM W. GRANT, JR., FOR HIS DEDICATED SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY MEMORIAL DAY COMMITTEE UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT FROM THAT POSITION, AND TO WISH HIM MUCH SUCCESS AND FULFILLMENT IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 5245 (Word version) --Reps. Shoopman, J. E. Smith, Harrell, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Chalk, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Daning, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Erickson, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrison, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Hutson, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss, Mulvaney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sellers, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO HONOR AND REMEMBER THE SUPREME SACRIFICE MADE BY SPECIALIST DAVID LEE LEIMBACH OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD, WHILE HE WAS SERVING AN EXTENDED TOUR OF MILITARY DUTY IN AFGHANISTAN, AND TO EXPRESS TO HIS WIDOW, FAMILY, AND FRIENDS THE DEEPEST APPRECIATION OF A GRATEFUL STATE AND NATION FOR HIS LIFE, SACRIFICE, AND SERVICE.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 5246 (Word version) --Reps. J. H. Neal, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Chalk, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Daning, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Erickson, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Hutson, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss, Mulvaney, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sellers, Shoopman, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR THE LOWER RICHLAND HIGH SCHOOL "LADY DIAMONDS" BASKETBALL TEAM ON ITS STELLAR SEASON AND IMPRESSIVE WIN OF THE 2008 CLASS AAAA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.
The Resolution was adopted.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Moody-Lawrence Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Walker Weeks White Williams Witherspoon Young
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Tuesday, June 3.
Paul Agnew Chris Hart William Bowers Greg Delleney Harold Mitchell Mike Gambrell Chip Huggins Patsy Knight William R. "Bill" Whitmire Edward H. "Ted" Pitts H. B. "Chip" Limehouse Thad Viers Jackson "Seth" Whipper Gilda Cobb-Hunter
Rep. VICK signed a statement with the Clerk that he came in after the roll call of the House and was present for the Session on Wednesday, May 28.
Rep. VICK signed a statement with the Clerk that he came in after the roll call of the House and was present for the Session on Thursday, May 29.
Rep. KIRSH made a statement relative to Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE'S service in the House.
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE made a statement relative to her service in the House.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 4470 (Word version) --Reps. Harrell, Leach, Cato, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrison, Limehouse, Merrill, Scarborough, W. D. Smith, Stavrinakis, Walker, Young, Gambrell, Haley, Bedingfield, Mahaffey, Cotty, McLeod, Owens, Rice, Bowen, Viers and Shoopman: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-3680 SO AS TO ALLOW A STATE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR THE PURCHASE, INSTALLATION, OR IMPROVEMENT OF A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND TO PROVIDE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CREDIT; TO AMEND SECTION 5-31-670, RELATING TO MUNICIPAL AND SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT WATER SYSTEMS, SO AS TO LIMIT CHARGES FOR SEPARATE LINES FOR FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS TO ACTUAL COSTS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXEMPT FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-220, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO ALLOW AN EXEMPTION FROM COUNTY TAXES FOR FIVE YEARS FOR THE FIRST FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS OF THE COST OF ADDING TO AND UPGRADES OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN EXISTENCE BEFORE JULY 1, 2008; TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-930, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEPRECIATION ALLOWED IN THE VALUATION OF MANUFACTURING PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF THE PROPERTY TAX, SO AS TO ALLOW A TWENTY PERCENT ANNUAL DEPRECIATION FOR THE ADDITION OR UPGRADE OF A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED OR UPGRADED IN A MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENT IN EXISTENCE BEFORE JULY 1, 2008, AND TO ALLOW THIS COST TO BE COMPLETELY DEPRECIATED; AND TO AMEND SECTION 23-9-40, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL, SO AS TO ADD AUTHORITY RELATING TO FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
Rep. COOPER explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
S. 530 (Word version) --Senator Leatherman: A BILL TO ENACT THE PROVISO CODIFICATION ACT OF 2007, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CODIFICATION IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS OF CERTAIN PROVISOS CONTAINED IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, AND TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT EFFECTIVE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 ONLY.
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:
S. 1171 (Word version) --Senators Peeler and Setzler: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-900 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE LISTING AND RETURNING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, TO PROVIDE THAT A MANUFACTURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO LIST OR RETURN PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR AD VALOREM TAX PURPOSES IF THE PROPERTY REMAINS IN THIS STATE BUT HAS NOT BEEN USED IN OPERATIONS FOR THE ENTIRE REPORTING PERIOD OF THE MANUFACTURER.
Rep. COOPER explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 3323 (Word version) --Reps. Harrison and Cotty: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-19-265, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES' ACCEPTANCE OF ELECTRONICALLY FILED LIEN INFORMATION FOR NEWLY ACQUIRED VEHICLES, VEHICLES ALREADY TITLED, AND LIEN RELEASES, AND THE COLLECTION OF A TRANSACTION FEE FOR THE TRANSMISSION OR RETRIEVAL OF DATA FROM THE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF THERE ARE ONE OR MORE LIENS OR ENCUMBRANCES ON A MOTOR VEHICLE OR MOBILE HOME, THE DEPARTMENT MAY ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMIT THE LIEN TO THE FIRST LIENHOLDER AND NOTIFY THE FIRST LIENHOLDER OF ANY ADDITIONAL LIENS, AND LIEN SATISFACTIONS, TO PROVIDE WHEN ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF LIENS AND LIEN SATISFACTIONS IS USED, A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE MAY BE ISSUED WHEN THE LAST LIEN IS SATISFIED AND A CLEAR CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED, TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN A MOTOR VEHICLE OR MOBILE HOME IS SUBJECT TO AN ELECTRONIC LIEN, ITS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IS PHYSICALLY HELD BY THE LIENHOLDER, TO PROVIDE THAT A CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ELECTRONIC RECORD OF A LIEN IS ADMISSIBLE IN COURT AS EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LIEN, AND TO PROVIDE THAT A TRANSACTION FEE MAY BE COLLECTED BY COMMERCIAL PARTIES AND LENDERS WHO TRANSMIT OR RETRIEVE DATA PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
Rep. WALKER explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 4312 (Word version) --Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 62-5-106 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A GUARDIANSHIP, CONSERVATORSHIP, OR OTHER PROTECTIVE ORDER ESTABLISHED BY REASON OF INCAPACITY, AND NOT MERELY MINORITY, DOES NOT TERMINATE AUTOMATICALLY UPON THE ATTAINMENT OF THE AGE OF MAJORITY BY THE INCAPACITATED PERSON AND TO DEFINE "INCAPACITATED PERSON" FOR THAT PURPOSE.
Rep. HARRISON explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 3478 (Word version) --Reps. Spires, Haley, Huggins, Bedingfield, F. N. Smith, Ballentine, Crawford, Frye, Harvin, Jefferson, Knight, Leach, Littlejohn, Mitchell, J. R. Smith, Stavrinakis, Toole, Whipper and Weeks: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1315, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO WAGE WITHHOLDING FOR THE COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE FAMILY COURT SHALL ORDER WAGE WITHHOLDING UPON FINDING THAT A PERSON, WHO IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY THROUGH WAGE WITHHOLDING OR THE FAMILY COURT, IS, OR HAS BEEN, IN ARREARS IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THREE OR MORE MONTH'S SUPPORT OBLIGATION.
Rep. TALLEY explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., June 3, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has receded from its amendments and requests that proper notation is made on the Bill:
H. 4334 (Word version) --Reps. J. M. Neal, Harrell, Clyburn, Haskins, Hosey, Cotty, Toole, Mahaffey, Moss, Mulvaney and Knight: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-61-80, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS TO BE CERTIFIED AS AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN, SO AS TO ALSO REQUIRE AN APPLICANT TO UNDERGO A CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK FOR CERTIFICATION AND FOR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATION.
Very respectfully,
President
A message having been received from the Senate that it had receded from its amendments, it was ordered that the title of the Bill be changed to that of an Act and that the Act be enrolled for ratification.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
September 4, 2008
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. 4876 (Word version), R. 295, a bill that would change the way mandatory and ad hoc Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) are granted for state retirees.
This bill is fundamentally flawed, and as such will prove to be a real problem in the long run to both taxpayers and retirees.
The old saying is that when you are in a hole, quit digging - yet this bill artificially and arbitrarily raises the projected rate of return for the retirement fund so that more spending can take place now - though we have already accumulated over $20 billion of unpaid-for political promises. We have absolutely no plan for addressing the existing liability - which would put you in jail if you did this with private pension fund assets - and yet we are going to add to spending commitments. We have made our concerns known in written form to the Treasurer's Office and, unfortunately, he has chosen to look past what we believe are his fiduciary responsibilities in acquiescing on this proposal.
At the core, we continue to believe that the state should not spend money it doesn't have and should instead try to honor past promises before making new ones.
South Carolina taxpayers are already on the hook - in large part without their consent - for over $27 billion in liabilities related to retirement and health care benefits. This invisible mortgage represents almost three times the state's budget and means each and every state taxpayer is in debt an additional $14,000 - over and above more than $9 trillion in national debt.
H. 4876 potentially adds another $2.6 billion to this $27 billion unpaid-for political promise while artificially boosting expected returns, to bizarrely justify more spending. Specifically, the eight percent investment return assumption is out of line with other states facing similar retirement issues. Factoring in inflation, our rate of return would move to five percent - higher than the national average and that of neighboring states. In fact, according to the actuary group, Milliman, South Carolina's optimistic expectations are 11 percent higher than the national median for public funds, 33 percent higher than Georgia's retirement system, and 43 percent higher than North Carolina's. In the real world, if you chose to assume a higher return in your savings account - higher than your neighbors' returns - and then increased your spending instead of paying down your existing mortgage, it would be considered financially reckless. No matter how you slice it, this bill does something similar at the state level.
With regard to the COLA-specific portion of the bill, we think the logic is left wanting on two fronts.
First, the bill's present-term solution disregards historical trends and, as a consequence, will likely create shortfalls in the future. We've been very clear that there needs to be complete transparency in the retirement system - and that includes building in the total cost of the COLA. This legislation doubles the COLA assumption from one percent to two percent - while historically the average COLA has been about three percent. As you will recall, S. 618 in 2005 enacted the guaranteed one percent COLA, but left open the option of a further COLA increase on an ad hoc basis by the Budget and Control Board. As a result, this bill either locks in future COLAs at two percent annually or continues the practice of underestimating the annual ad hoc COLA that will almost certainly be approved by the Board.
Second, even if it is a cost neutral proposal - which we have serious doubts about - the bill seems to misplace its priorities. Rather than dedicating the reduced liability to building up the COLA, we believe the first order of business should be to reduce the overall liability. As much as retirees care about COLA as a way of guarding their returns from inflation, most retirees I talk to care even more that government will honor its commitment to the viability of the system itself - because without it there is no payment onto which a COLA can be added.
The State Retirement System's unfunded liability is still 18 months shy of the 30 year cap. I predicted when the General Assembly enacted S. 618 in 2005, the unfunded liability would be back close to this cap in just a few short years. Fast forward to today, roughly six years has been added to the unfunded liability since that bill was passed. Another short-term "fix" that does nothing to address the long-term liability is, in my view, unacceptable.
At its core, this bill looks to guarantee a two percent annual COLA increase. While that may in itself be a worthy endeavor, we'd ask the General Assembly to first explore options based on this common-sense notion of paying for existing promises before making new ones. We've recommended reforms such as closing the state's defined benefit retirement plan to new entrants and moving back retirement eligibility to 30 years from the current 28. We've also suggested that budget writers use more surplus dollars to pay down the overall liability, and this year's passage of H. 3789 would allow them greater latitude in doing so. Unfortunately, this year the General Assembly also went in the opposite direction and took two steps back by taking $42 million from the reserve account dedicated for retirement.
We continue to believe greater steps need to be taken so that the state's financial burdens are not handed to the next generation of taxpayers, and I'd ask that you consider our concerns outlined above as you reconsider this legislation.
For the above reasons, I am vetoing H. 4876, R. 295. I would strongly ask for our children's sake you do the same.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R295) H. 4876 (Word version) --Reps. Cooper and Cotty: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 9-1-1810, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AWARD OF ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES IN BENEFITS PAID BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO REFLECT INCREASES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, SO AS TO INCREASE FROM ONE PERCENT TO TWO PERCENT THE GUARANTEED ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT AND TO REVISE THE CRITERIA, INCLUDING INCREASED EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS, WHICH MUST BE MET BEFORE FURTHER INCREASES MAY BE AWARDED SUBJECT TO THE CURRENT OVERALL FOUR PERCENT LIMIT ON ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES; TO AMEND SECTION 9-11-310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE AWARD OF AN ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE IN BENEFITS PAID BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO REFLECT INCREASES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, SO AS TO PROVIDE A GUARANTEED TWO PERCENT ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT AND TO REVISE THE CRITERIA, INCLUDING INCREASED EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS, WHICH MUST BE MET BEFORE FURTHER INCREASES MAY BE AWARDED SUBJECT TO THE CURRENT OVERALL FOUR PERCENT LIMIT ON ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES, TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ABOVE PROVISIONS SHALL READ UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, AND TO PROVIDE THE ACTIONS REQUIRED BY THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD FOR THE ABOVE PROVISIONS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE; TO AMEND SECTION 9-8-125, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF A MEMBER OF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR JUDGES AND SOLICITORS TO RECEIVE BENEFITS FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT SYSTEM UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, SO AS TO LOWER THE REQUIRED AGE OF THE MEMBER; TO AMEND SECTIONS 9-1-1020, 9-1-1620, 9-1-1680, AND 9-1-1970, ALL AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-1-1625, 9-1-1665, 9-1-1975, AND 9-1-1980 ALL SO AS TO COMPLY WITH THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR THIS RETIREMENT SYSTEM WITH REGARD TO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS, AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS PERTAINING TO PARTICIPATION IN AND PROCEDURES FOR THIS SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTIONS 9-8-130, 9-8-190, BOTH AS AMENDED, AND 9-8-240, RELATING TO THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR JUDGES AND SOLICITORS, AND BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-8-245, 9-8-250, 9-8-260, AND 9-8-270 ALL SO AS TO COMPLY WITH THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR THIS SYSTEM WITH REGARD TO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS, AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS PERTAINING TO PARTICIPATION IN AND PROCEDURES FOR THIS SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTIONS 9-9-70, AS AMENDED, 9-9-120, 9-9-180, AS AMENDED, AND 9-9-240, RELATING TO THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-9-245, 9-9-250, 9-9-255, AND 9-9-260 ALL SO AS TO COMPLY WITH THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR THIS RETIREMENT SYSTEM WITH REGARD TO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS, AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS PERTAINING TO PARTICIPATION IN AND PROCEDURES FOR THIS SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTIONS 9-11-150, 9-11-210, 9-11-270, ALL AS AMENDED, AND 9-11-350, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-11-155, 9-11-175, 9-11-355, AND 9-11-360 ALL SO AS TO COMPLY WITH THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR THIS RETIREMENT SYSTEM WITH REGARD TO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS, AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS PERTAINING TO PARTICIPATION IN AND PROCEDURES FOR THIS SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTION 9-16-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT OF ASSETS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, SO AS TO COMPLY WITH THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE; BY ADDING CHAPTER 12 TO TITLE 9 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR QUALIFIED EXCESS BENEFIT ARRANGEMENTS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 9-1-10, 9-1-1140, AND 9-1-1620, ALL AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, AND BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-1-320, 9-1-1135, AND 9-1-1775 ALL SO AS TO CODIFY CERTAIN REGULATIONS TO FURTHER IDENTIFY THE PLAN DOCUMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR THIS RETIREMENT SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTION 9-8-70, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR JUDGES AND SOLICITORS, AND BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-8-35 AND 9-8-185 ALL SO AS TO CODIFY CERTAIN REGULATIONS TO FURTHER IDENTIFY THE PLAN DOCUMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR THIS RETIREMENT SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTION 9-9-70, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-9-31 AND 9-9-175 ALL SO AS TO FURTHER IDENTIFY THE PLAN DOCUMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR THIS SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTIONS 9-11-50 AND 9-11-150, BOTH AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-11-35, 9-11-125, AND 9-11-265 ALL SO AS TO CODIFY CERTAIN REGULATIONS TO FURTHER IDENTIFY THE PLAN DOCUMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR THIS RETIREMENT SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-40, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REFERENCE DATE BY WHICH THIS STATE ADOPTS VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, SO AS TO PROVIDE A REFERENCE DATE OF DECEMBER 31, 2007; AND TO PROVIDE THAT UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, REGULATIONS 19-900 THROUGH 19-997 OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF REGULATIONS SHALL HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE OPERATION OF TITLE 9 OF THE 1976 CODE.
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 Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hosey Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Moody-Lawrence Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bedingfield Crawford Hagood Merrill Mulvaney Shoopman Stewart
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
I am abstaining from voting on the Veto of H. 4876 due to a possible conflict of interest.
Rep. Garry R. Smith
I was temporarily out of the Chamber during the vote on H. 4876. If I had been present, I would have voted to override the Governor's veto on the Bill.
Rep. Thad Viers
I was out of the Chamber when the Veto on H. 4876, the Cost of Living Allowance, or "COLA" was overridden. I was the guest speaker at a graduation ceremony in my district. If I had been present, I would have voted to override the Governor's veto on the Bill.
Rep. Patsy Knight
I was out of the Chamber when the Veto on H. 4876, the Cost of Living Allowance, or "COLA" was overridden. I was the speaker for the Community Outreach Partnership Center, with our AP students in Spartanburg and the University of South Carolina Upstate, and our South African students with the global classroom exchange. If I had been present, I would have voted to override the Governor's veto on the Bill.
Rep. Harold Mitchell
Rep. J. M. NEAL moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, June 4, which was adopted:
S. 297 (Word version) --Senator Peeler: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 7 TO CHAPTER 61, TITLE 44 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMPLOYMENT ACT" AND TO REQUIRE AFTER JUNE 30, 2007, A PERSON SEEKING EMPLOYMENT AS AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN (EMT) TO UNDERGO A CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK PRIOR TO EMPLOYMENT, TO PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT OF A PERSON AS AN EMT IF THE PERSON HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF CERTAIN FELONY CRIMES OR CRIMES AGAINST CERTAIN VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS, TO EXEMPT AN EMT EMPLOYED ON JULY 1, 2007, FROM A CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK UNLESS AND UNTIL THE EMT CHANGES HIS EMT EMPLOYMENT, AND TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY.
Rep. SIMRILL moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, June 4, which was adopted:
S. 1376 (Word version) --Senators Hayes, Peeler, Gregory and Short: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-530, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN YORK COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE AND ADD CERTAIN VOTING PRECINCTS OF YORK COUNTY, AND TO REDESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD.
The following Bills were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
S. 1158 (Word version) --Senators Hayes, Sheheen, Gregory, Short and Peeler: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 49-29-230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATIONS, SO AS TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE CATAWBA RIVER AS A SCENIC RIVER.
Rep. M. A. PITTS explained the Bill.
S. 1210 (Word version) --Senator Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 49-29-230(4) OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO SCENIC RIVERS, TO EXPAND THE PORTION OF LYNCHES RIVER THAT IS DESIGNATED AS A SCENIC RIVER.
S. 980 (Word version) --Senator Lourie: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-121, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CREATION, PURPOSE, AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NOTHING PROHIBITS A COUNTY FROM PROVIDING GUARDIAN AD LITEM SERVICES IF THE COUNTY'S PROGRAM IS CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SUBARTICLE APPLIES TO SUCH PROGRAMS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-7-126 AND 20-7-127, BOTH AS AMENDED, RELATING, RESPECTIVELY, TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS AND IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY, SO AS TO FURTHER SPECIFY THAT THESE PROVISIONS APPLY TO COUNTY GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAMS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-129, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SUCH FUNDING IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR A COUNTY GUARDAIN AD LITEM PROGRAM.
Rep. J. E. SMITH explained the Bill.
Rep. HAGOOD moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill, which was adopted:
S. 1313 (Word version) --Senators Knotts, Peeler, Williams, Elliott, Ford, Vaughn, Grooms, Malloy, Cromer, Bryant, Courson, Setzler, McConnell, Ceips, Ritchie, Cleary, Campsen, Short, McGill, Patterson, Reese, Ryberg, Fair, Thomas, Campbell, Anderson, Drummond, Pinckney, Jackson, Alexander, Leatherman, O'Dell, Lourie, Matthews, Martin, Rankin, Hayes and Verdin: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-223 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO THROUGH A BOND FOR TITLE, LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT, CONTRACT FOR SALE, OR OTHER TYPE OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT OWNS AN EQUITABLE INTEREST IN A PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY, THE LEGAL TITLE TO WHICH REMAINS IN THE SELLER, WHICH THAT PERSON MAINTAINS AS HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE QUALIFIES FOR A FOUR PERCENT ASSESSMENT RATIO THEREON IF HE MEETS ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED BY LAW FOR SUCH CLASSIFICATION INCLUDING A REQUIREMENT IN THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT THAT HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REAL PROPERTY TAXES ON THE PROPERTY.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 987 (Word version) --Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-80, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF BOATING LAWS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS ENFORCEMENT, THE AUTHORITY OF ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ENFORCE THESE PROVISIONS, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-114, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO OPERATING A WATER DEVICE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS AND THE IMPLIED CONSENT FOR A BREATH TEST TO DETERMINE BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVELS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR PROCEDURAL MATTERS IN REGARD TO THESE TESTS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DUTIES OF A VESSEL OPERATOR INVOLVED IN A COLLISION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE DUTIES INCLUDING WHEN AN ACCIDENT REPORT IS REQUIRED AND TO STIPULATE THE PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO MAY OBTAIN A COPY OF THE REPORT; BY ADDING SECTION 50-21-118 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE OPERATOR OF A WATERCRAFT IS STRICTLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS AND CONDUCT OF ALL PERSONS ON BOARD AND ANY PERSONS BEING TOWED BY THE WATERCRAFT; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-175, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO WATERCRAFT REQUIRED TO HEAVE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAGISTRATES COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION OVER VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION; BY ADDING SECTION 50-21-190 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO ABANDON A WATERCRAFT OR OUTBOARD MOTOR ON THE PUBLIC LANDS OR WATERS OF THIS STATE OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND TO ALSO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-710, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO AIDS TO NAVIGATION AND REGULATORY MARKERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL NO WAKE ZONES HERETOFORE ESTABLISHED ARE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THIS SECTION; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 50-21-132, 50-21-133, 50-21-135, 50-21-136, 50-21-137, 50-21-138, 50-21-139, 50-21-142, 50-21-143, 50-21-144, 50-21-145, 50-21-147, AND 50-21-149 RELATING TO NO WAKE ZONES OR OTHER REGULATION OF WATERCRAFT ACTIVITIES.
Rep. CRAWFORD proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20742SD08), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding a new SECTION appropriately numbered to read:
/SECTION _____. Section 23-28-100 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 23-28-100. The uniforms and equipment issued by the political entity shall remain the property of the entity but may, in the discretion of the chief, may be entrusted to the care and control of the reserves. Reserves shall wear uniforms which will shall identify them as law enforcement officers. However, in the discretion of the chief, a reserve may wear plain clothes or another uniform that is consistent with his duties as a law enforcement officer. Handguns, if issued, shall be of a caliber approved by the chief."/
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. CRAWFORD explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
Rep. HERBKERSMAN proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name COUNCIL\GJK\20743SD08), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 50-21-175 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 3, by adding a new subsection (E) immediately following subsection (D) beginning on line 21, page 4, to read:
/ (E) The operator of a watercraft under twenty-two feet in length may only be stopped by a state law enforcement officer for a violation of state law relating to the operation of the watercraft if the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe such a violation occurred. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. HERBKERSMAN explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
Rep. SCARBOROUGH moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill, which was adopted:
S. 429 (Word version) --Senators Malloy and Jackson: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 17, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 28, THE "ACCESS TO JUSTICE POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING ACT", SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR POST CONVICTION DNA TESTING, AND BY ADDING ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 28, THE "PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE ACT", SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE.
Rep. COOPER moved that the House recede until 3:00 p.m., which was agreed to.
At 3:00 p.m. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
The question of a quorum was raised.
A quorum was later present.
The motion of Rep. CHALK to reconsider the vote whereby the Veto on the following Act was sustained was taken up:
(R289) H. 3906 (Word version) --Reps. Witherspoon and Moss: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-15-125 SO AS TO REQUIRE A DENTAL LABORATORY THAT PERFORMS DENTAL TECHNOLOGICAL WORK OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE TO EMPLOY A PERSON WHO IS REGISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY TO AUTHORIZE SUCH WORK BASED ON THE PRESCRIPTION OF A DENTIST LICENSED IN THIS STATE, TO REQUIRE THE LABORATORY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE WORK WAS PERFORMED, AND TO REQUIRE THE LABORATORY TO PROVIDE A LIST OF THE MATERIALS USED IN THE WORK; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-15-280, RELATING TO WORK AUTHORIZATIONS FOR DENTAL TECHNOLOGICAL WORK, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE INVOICE FOR A PRESCRIPTION TO INCLUDE THE CERTIFICATE NUMBER OF THE PERSON EMPLOYED BY THE LABORATORY WHICH IS TO PERFORM THE WORK.
Rep. CHALK spoke in favor of the motion to reconsider.
Rep. WITHERSPOON spoke in favor of the motion to reconsider.
Rep. CRAWFORD spoke in favor of the motion to reconsider.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R289) H. 3906 (Word version) --Reps. Witherspoon and Moss: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-15-125 SO AS TO REQUIRE A DENTAL LABORATORY THAT PERFORMS DENTAL TECHNOLOGICAL WORK OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE TO EMPLOY A PERSON WHO IS REGISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY TO AUTHORIZE SUCH WORK BASED ON THE PRESCRIPTION OF A DENTIST LICENSED IN THIS STATE, TO REQUIRE THE LABORATORY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE WORK WAS PERFORMED, AND TO REQUIRE THE LABORATORY TO PROVIDE A LIST OF THE MATERIALS USED IN THE WORK; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-15-280, RELATING TO WORK AUTHORIZATIONS FOR DENTAL TECHNOLOGICAL WORK, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE INVOICE FOR A PRESCRIPTION TO INCLUDE THE CERTIFICATE NUMBER OF THE PERSON EMPLOYED BY THE LABORATORY WHICH IS TO PERFORM THE WORK.
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 Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Kelly Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams 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.
Rep. THOMPSON moved to reconsider the vote whereby the following Bill was given a second reading:
S. 987 (Word version) --Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-80, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF BOATING LAWS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS ENFORCEMENT, THE AUTHORITY OF ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ENFORCE THESE PROVISIONS, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-114, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO OPERATING A WATER DEVICE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS AND THE IMPLIED CONSENT FOR A BREATH TEST TO DETERMINE BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVELS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR PROCEDURAL MATTERS IN REGARD TO THESE TESTS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DUTIES OF A VESSEL OPERATOR INVOLVED IN A COLLISION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE DUTIES INCLUDING WHEN AN ACCIDENT REPORT IS REQUIRED AND TO STIPULATE THE PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO MAY OBTAIN A COPY OF THE REPORT; BY ADDING SECTION 50-21-118 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE OPERATOR OF A WATERCRAFT IS STRICTLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS AND CONDUCT OF ALL PERSONS ON BOARD AND ANY PERSONS BEING TOWED BY THE WATERCRAFT; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-175, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO WATERCRAFT REQUIRED TO HEAVE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAGISTRATES COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION OVER VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION; BY ADDING SECTION 50-21-190 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO ABANDON A WATERCRAFT OR OUTBOARD MOTOR ON THE PUBLIC LANDS OR WATERS OF THIS STATE OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND TO ALSO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-710, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO AIDS TO NAVIGATION AND REGULATORY MARKERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL NO WAKE ZONES HERETOFORE ESTABLISHED ARE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THIS SECTION; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 50-21-132, 50-21-133, 50-21-135, 50-21-136, 50-21-137, 50-21-138, 50-21-139, 50-21-142, 50-21-143, 50-21-144, 50-21-145, 50-21-147, AND 50-21-149 RELATING TO NO WAKE ZONES OR OTHER REGULATION OF WATERCRAFT ACTIVITIES.
Rep. THOMPSON moved to table the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.
Rep. G. M. SMITH asked unanimous consent to recall S. 590 (Word version) from the Committee on Judiciary.
Rep. MAHAFFEY objected.
Rep. HERBKERSMAN asked unanimous consent to recall S. 833 (Word version) from the Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs.
Rep. WITHERSPOON objected.
Rep. WHIPPER asked unanimous consent to recall S. 59 (Word version) from the Committee on Judiciary.
Rep. CLEMMONS objected.
On motion of Rep. RUTHERFORD, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Committee on Judiciary:
S. 1172 (Word version) --Senators Knotts, Ford, Fair, Elliott, Thomas, Short, O'Dell, Reese and Anderson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 17-5-50, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FILLING OF VACANCIES IN THE OFFICE OF THE CORONER, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED AND FOR THE PERSON WHO SHALL ACT IN THE CORONER'S PLACE IF A VACANCY OR SUSPENSION IN THE OFFICE EXISTS.
Rep. HAGOOD asked unanimous consent to recall S. 511 (Word version) from the Committee on Judiciary.
Rep. HART objected.
Rep. BALLENTINE asked unanimous consent to recall S. 997 (Word version) from the Committee on Education and Public Works.
Rep. WHITMIRE objected.
Rep. HERBKERSMAN asked unanimous consent to recall S. 1260 (Word version) from the Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs.
Rep. THOMPSON objected.
Rep. HART asked unanimous consent to recall S. 398 (Word version) from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
Rep. CATO objected.
Rep. BANNISTER asked unanimous consent to recall S. 425 (Word version) from the Committee on Education and Public Works.
Rep. WHITMIRE objected.
Debate was resumed on the Vetoes on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of Vetoes:
(R293) H. 4800 --Ways and Means Committee: AN ACT TO MAKE APPROPRIATIONS AND TO PROVIDE REVENUES TO MEET THE ORDINARY EXPENSES OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2008, TO REGULATE THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH FUNDS, AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT DURING THIS FISCAL YEAR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Veto 1 Part 1A, Section 1; Page 12; Department of Education, Section XIII. Aid to School Districts; C. Special Allocations, YMCA - Youth in Government; $18,445.
The motion of Rep. WEEKS to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 1 was sustained was taken up and agreed to.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Delleney Edge Gambrell Gullick Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Littlejohn Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Vick Viers Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Chalk Cotty Crawford Davenport Duncan Erickson Frye Funderburk Hagood Haley Huggins Hutson Kelly Kirsh Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Mulvaney E. H. Pitts Rice Shoopman D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Toole Umphlett Walker Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 2 Part IA; Section 7; Page 30; Higher Education Tuition and Grants Commission; I. Administration; Special Items; SC Student Legislature; $25,000.
The motion of Rep. STAVRINAKIS to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 2 was sustained was taken up and agreed to.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Daning Dantzler Edge Gambrell Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Knight Limehouse Littlejohn Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers F. N. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Vick Viers Whipper White Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Cato Chalk Coleman Cotty Crawford Davenport Delleney Duncan Erickson Frye Funderburk Gullick Hagood Haley Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Hutson Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Leach Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Moss Mulvaney Owens Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Walker Weeks Whitmire Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 3 Part IA; Section 10; Page 38; University of Charleston; I. Education & General; Special Items; Hospitality, Tourism, and Management Program; $545,000.
The motion of Rep. STAVRINAKIS to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 3 was sustained was taken up and agreed to.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Edge Erickson Funderburk Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Cotty Davenport Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Haskins Hiott Littlejohn Mulvaney J. M. Neal Owens Rice Shoopman Skelton D. C. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 4 Part IA; Section 10; Page 38; University of Charleston; I. Education & General; Special Items; Business - Economic Partnership Initiative; $1,204,314.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Edge Erickson Gambrell Govan Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Mack Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Cotty Davenport Duncan Frye Funderburk Hagood Haley Hamilton Haskins Hiott Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Lucas Mahaffey McLeod Mulvaney J. M. Neal Owens Rice Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Whitmire
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 5 Part IA; Section 10; Page 38; University of Charleston; Education & General; Special Items; Effective Teaching & Learning; $901,800.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Edge Erickson Gambrell Govan Hagood Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Limehouse Lowe Lucas Mack McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers F. N. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Toole Umphlett Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Cato Cotty Davenport Delleney Duncan Frye Gullick Haley Hamilton Haskins Hiott Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Mahaffey Mulvaney Owens Rice Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 6 Part IA; Section 10; Page 38; University of Charleston; I. Education & General; Special Items; Global Trade & Resource Center; $350,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Gambrell Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Limehouse Loftis Lowe Mack McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Umphlett Vick Whipper White Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Cotty Davenport Frye Gullick Hagood Haley Haskins Hiott Hodges Kirsh Knight Leach Littlejohn Lucas Mahaffey Moss Mulvaney Owens Rice Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Viers Walker Weeks Whitmire
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 7 Part IA; Section 12; Page 44; Francis Marion University; I. Education and General; A. Unrestricted; Special Items; Rural Assistance Initiative; $600,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Gambrell Govan Hagood Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Cotty Davenport Frye Haley Hamilton Hutson Kirsh Leach Mahaffey Merrill E. H. Pitts Rice Shoopman D. C. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Viers Whitmire 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 during the vote on Veto No. 7. If I had been present, I would have voted to sustain the Governor's Veto.
Rep. Mick Mulvaney
Veto 8 Part IA; Section 12; Page 44; Francis Marion University; I. Education & General; A. Unrestricted; Special Items; Omega Project; $75,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Battle Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Daning Erickson Harrell Hart Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Limehouse Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Rutherford Scarborough Scott Sellers F. N. Smith J. E. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Weeks Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bannister Barfield Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Coleman Cotty Crawford Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrison Haskins Hiott Huggins Hutson Kelly Kirsh Knight Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Moss Mulvaney Owens Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 9 Part IA; Section 15F; Page 61; USC - Salkehatchie Campus; Education & General; Unrestricted; Salkehatchie Leadership Center; $100,460.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Erickson Gambrell Govan Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Knight Limehouse Littlejohn Mack McLeod Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers F. N. Smith J. E. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Toole Umphlett Vick Weeks Whipper White Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Cotty Delleney Duncan Edge Frye Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Haskins Hiott Hutson Kelly Kirsh Leach Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Owens Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Viers Walker Whitmire Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 10 Part IA; Section 21; Page 85; Department of Health and Human Services; II. Programs and Services; A. Health Services; 3. Medical Assistance Payment; Z. Children's Health Insurance Program; $21,279,557.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Hamilton D. C. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 11 Part 1B; Section 21.32; Pages 359-360; Department of Health and Human Services; State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 12 Part IA; Section 30; Page 129; Art Commission; II. Statewide Arts Services; Special Items; McClellanville Arts Council; $12,500.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Battle Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Delleney Erickson Gambrell Govan Hart Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Knight Limehouse Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts Rutherford Scarborough Scott Sellers F. N. Smith J. E. Smith W. D. Smith Stavrinakis Vick Weeks Whipper Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bannister Barfield Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Cotty Crawford Davenport Duncan Edge Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrison Haskins Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Kelly Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Merrill Moss Mulvaney M. A. Pitts Rice Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker White Whitmire
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 13 Part IA; Section 47; Page 180; Commission on Indigent Defense; III. Office of Circuit Public Defenders; Special Items; DUI Defense of Indigents; $1,000,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Brantley G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams 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 during the vote on Veto No. 13. If I had been present, I would have voted to override the Governor's Veto.
Rep. Carl Anderson
I was temporarily out of the Chamber during the vote on Veto No. 13. If I had been present, I would have voted to override the Governor's Veto.
Rep. Chris Hart
Veto 14 Part IA; Section 47; Page 180; Commission on Indigent Defense; III. Office of Circuit Public Defenders; Special Items; Criminal Domestic Violence; $1,320,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 15 Part IA; Section 49; Page 187; Department of Public Safety; II. Programs and Services; D. Bureau of Protective Services; Special Item; Hunley Security; $257,317.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Gambrell Gullick Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Howard Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Knight Limehouse Mack Merrill Miller J. H. Neal Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Sandifer Scarborough Sellers Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Toole Umphlett Viers Whipper White Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Branham Chalk Cotty Crawford Duncan Erickson Frye Govan Hagood Hamilton Hart Haskins Hayes Hosey Huggins Kennedy Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey McLeod Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Rice Rutherford Scott Shoopman D. C. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Vick Walker Weeks Whitmire Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 16 Part IA; Section 73; Page 256; Lieutenant Governor's Office; II. Office on Aging; Special Item; Silver Haired Legislature; $15,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Gambrell Govan Gullick Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Lowe Lucas Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith J. E. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Vick Viers White Whitmire Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Cato Cotty Davenport Edge Erickson Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Hiott Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Mahaffey Merrill Mulvaney Owens Perry Rice Shoopman D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Umphlett Walker Weeks Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 17 Part IA; Section 78; Page 266; Adjutant General's Office; X. State Guard; Other Operating Expenses; $97,768.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Govan Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bedingfield Hagood Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Stewart Talley Umphlett White
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 18 Part IA; Section 80A; Page 271; Budget and Control Board; II. Operations and Executive Training; C. Executive Institute; Total Executive Institute, $269,357.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Battle Bowers Brantley Breeland G. Brown Cooper Dantzler Govan Harrell Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jennings Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Parks Phillips Rutherford Scarborough Sellers W. D. Smith Spires Whipper Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Allen Ballentine Barfield Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Branham Cato Chalk Clemmons Coleman Cotty Crawford Daning Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrison Hart Haskins Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Hutson Jefferson Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Moss Mulvaney Neilson Owens Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scott Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 19 Part 1B; Section 6.29; Page 349; Commission on Higher Education; In-State Tuition.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Bales Hart Hayes Howard Mack McLeod Mitchell Phillips Rutherford Sellers F. N. Smith Vick Whipper
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Allen Anderson Anthony Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Miller Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 20 Part 1B; Section 19.4; Pages 352-353; Paragraphs 1 and 2; Educational Television Commission; ETV: SC Educational Broadband Service Commission/Broadband License.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
Rep. COOPER moved to adjourn debate on the veto, which was agreed to.
Veto 21 Part 1B; Section 21.12; Page 356; Department of Health and Human Services; DHHS: Chiropractic Services.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Daning Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Hagood Kirsh Mulvaney Rice
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 22 Part 1B; Section 21.26; Page 358; Department of Health and Human Services; Prior Authorization Exemptions.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Kirsh Littlejohn Owens Rice D. C. Smith G. R. Smith Talley
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 23 Part 1B; Section 21.35; Page 360; Health and Human Services; Long Term Care Facility Reimbursement Rates.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Chalk Duncan Hagood Kirsh
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 24 Part 1B; Section 21.36; Page 360; Department of Health and Human Services; Carry Forward Funds-Health Initiatives, $1,283,695.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bedingfield Hagood Kirsh Mulvaney Stewart
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 25 Part IB; Section 21.36; Page 360; Medical University of South Carolina, Rural Dentist Program, $250,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Kirsh
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 26 Part 1B; Section 21.38; Page 360; Department of Health and Human Services; DHHS: Monthly Reporting Requirement.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Brantley Breeland G. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Daning Dantzler Delleney Edge Erickson Gambrell Govan Gullick Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Limehouse Loftis Mack McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Whipper White Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Anderson Bedingfield R. Brown Coleman Cotty Crawford Davenport Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Haskins Hayes Hiott Hutson Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Mulvaney Owens E. H. Pitts Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith W. D. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Walker Weeks Whitmire
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 27 Part 1B; Section 21.39; Page 361; Health and Human Services; Upper Payment Limit for Non-State Owned Public Nursing Facilities.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Erickson Gambrell Govan Gullick Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Loftis Mack Merrill Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Skelton F. N. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Taylor Thompson Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Chalk Cotty Crawford Duncan Frye Hagood Haley Haskins Huggins Hutson Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mulvaney Owens E. H. Pitts Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 28 Part 1B; Section 21.40; Page 361; Health and Human Services; Nursing Services to High Risk/ High Tech Children.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Coleman Crawford Daning Edge Howard Hutson Lowe McLeod Neilson Parks E. H. Pitts Rutherford F. N. Smith Vick
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Cotty Davenport Delleney Duncan Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Merrill Miller Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Owens Perry Phillips Pinson Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 29 Part 1B; Section 26.18; Page 375; Department of Social Services; C.R. Neal Learning Center.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anthony Bales Battle Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown Hart Hayes Hosey Howard Jefferson Kennedy Mack McLeod Mitchell J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Rutherford Scott Sellers F. N. Smith J. E. Smith Vick Whipper Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Anderson Ballentine Bannister Barfield Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Hutson Jennings Kelly Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Moss Mulvaney Owens Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 30 Part 1B; Section 26.28; Page 377; Department of Social Services; Teen Pregnancy Prevention; $1,200,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Cotty Kirsh Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 31 Part 1B; Section 37.1; Pages 382-383; Department of Natural Resources; County Funds.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allen Anderson Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Bedingfield Daning Hagood Lucas Shoopman D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
I was out of the Chamber involved in a meeting affecting my district while the House took up the Governor's vetoes to H. 4800. Had I been in the Chamber, I would have voted as follows:
5 - yea
6 - nay
7 - yea
8 - yea
9 - yea
10 - yea
11 - yea
12 - nay
13 - yea
14 - yea
15 - nay
16 - nay
17 - yea
18 - yea
19 - nay
20 - yea
21 - yea
22 - yea
23 - yea
24 - yea
25 - yea
26 - nay
27 - nay
28 - yea
29 - nay
30 - yea
31 - nay
Rep. Laurie Slade Funderburk
Veto 32 Part 1B; Section 37.2; Page 383; Department of Natural Resources; DNR: County Game Funds/Equipment Purchase.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allen Anderson Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown Cato Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry E. H. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Bedingfield Cotty Daning Davenport Funderburk Hagood Haskins Pinson Shoopman D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 33 Part 1B; Section 39.5; Page 385-386; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Litter Control.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clyburn Coleman Cooper Dantzler Gambrell Govan Gullick Hamilton Harrell Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Limehouse Mack Miller Mitchell J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Spires Taylor Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Chalk Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Cotty Crawford Daning Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Hagood Haley Hardwick Harrison Haskins Hiott Huggins Hutson Kirsh Knight Leach Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Moss Mulvaney Owens E. H. Pitts Rice Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 34 Part 1B; Section 39.7; Page 386; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; State Park Privatization Approval.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowen Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clyburn Coleman Cooper Daning Duncan Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Knight Mack McLeod Miller Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Scott Sellers G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Umphlett Vick Weeks Whipper White Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Cotty Crawford Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Erickson Frye Hagood Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hiott Hutson Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Mulvaney Owens Perry Rice Sandifer Scarborough Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Stewart Talley Toole Viers Walker Whitmire Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 35 Part 1B; Section 39.15; Page 387; Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Regional Tourism.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Cotty Davenport Haskins Hutson Lucas Neilson D. C. Smith Stewart Talley Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 36 Part 1B; Section 40.20; Page 390; Department of Commerce; Funding for I-73 & I-74.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Bedingfield Delleney Funderburk Gullick Hiott Kirsh Mulvaney Owens Shoopman Skelton D. C. Smith
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 37 Part 1B, Section 40.29; Pages 390-391; Department of Commerce; County Industrial Utility Infrastructure Grant Program; $1,500,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Skelton F. N. Smith J. E. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Taylor Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Chalk Clemmons Cotty Crawford Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Haskins Hiott Huggins Hutson Kirsh Leach Limehouse Loftis Lowe Mulvaney Owens Rice Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 38 Part 1B; Section 40.35; Pages 391-392; Department of Commerce; Economic Development Organizations.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Cobb-Hunter Cooper Daning Dantzler Duncan Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Mack McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Cotty Davenport Delleney Hagood Hutson Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Mulvaney Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Viers Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 39 Part 1B; Section 40.41; Page 392; Department of Commerce; Repayment of Energy Loan.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Daning Duncan Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Scarborough Scott Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Davenport Delleney Kirsh Lucas Mulvaney D. C. Smith Talley Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
I abstained from voting on Veto No. 39 due to a possible conflict of interest.
Rep. Phillip Shoopman
Veto 40 Part 1B; Section 51.32; Pages 410-411; Department of Corrections; Quota Elimination.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
Rep. F. N. SMITH spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Mack Mahaffey Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips 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. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Walker Weeks Whipper Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Delleney Hagood Lucas Viers
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 during the vote on Veto No. 40. If I had been present, I would have voted to override the Veto.
Rep. Walt McLeod
Veto 41 Part 1B; Section 65.10; Page 420; Labor, Licensing and Regulation; Wind and Structural Engineering Research Lab, $100,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Battle Bingham Bowen Brady Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Hayes Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Knight Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Anderson Barfield Bedingfield Bowers Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Daning Davenport Erickson Hagood Haskins Kennedy Kirsh Leach Merrill Moss Mulvaney Owens Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith Thompson
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
In regards to the vote on Veto No. 41, I had voted to override the Veto and just before the vote closed, I changed my vote to sustain, thinking we had moved on to Veto No. 42. Please let the record show that my intention was to vote to override Veto No. 41.
Rep. Richard Chalk
Veto 42 Part 1B; Section 76.15; Page 438; State Treasurer's Office; Printing Wage Statements.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bowen Bowers Brady Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Edge Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hardwick Harrell Hart Harvin Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Limehouse Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mack Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Skelton F. N. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stewart Taylor Umphlett Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Davenport Duncan Erickson Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Haskins Hiott Knight Leach Loftis Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mulvaney Owens Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Stavrinakis Talley Thompson Toole Viers Walker
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 43 Part 1B; Section 80A.6; Page 442; Budget and Control Board; Real Property - Sale/Leaseback/Repurchase Revenue Account.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Kennedy Mitchell Vick
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 44 Part 1B; Section 80A.9; Page 443; Budget and Control Board; Compensation - Agency Head Salary.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown Clyburn Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Funderburk Harrell Hayes Howard Knight Limehouse Littlejohn Mack McLeod Mitchell Ott Parks M. A. Pitts Scarborough Spires Taylor Vick Weeks Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Allen Ballentine Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Cotty Crawford Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Leach Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Miller Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Owens Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 45 Part 1B; Section 80A.47; Page 451; Paragraph 3; Budget and Control Board; Employee Compensation.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Brantley Breeland G. Brown Clyburn Cooper Daning Harrell Hayes Howard Jefferson Knight Littlejohn Mack Mitchell Ott Rutherford Vick Whipper
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Allen Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cotty Crawford Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Hutson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey McLeod Miller Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 46 Part 1B; Section 22.40; Page 367; Department of Health and Environmental Control; Competitive Grants.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clyburn Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Harrell Hart Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Owens Parks Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Rice Scarborough Scott Skelton J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Toole Umphlett Vick Weeks Whipper White Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Clemmons Cotty Crawford Davenport Delleney Duncan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrison Haskins Hutson Knight Leach Lucas Mahaffey Mulvaney Pinson E. H. Pitts Sandifer Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Viers Walker Whitmire Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 47 Part 1B; Section 39.6; Page 386; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Competitive Grants.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Hardwick Harrell Hart Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kirsh Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Mack McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Toole Umphlett Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Chalk Cotty Crawford Davenport Delleney Duncan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrison Haskins Knight Leach Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Mulvaney E. H. Pitts Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Viers Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 48 Part 1B; Section 40.23; Page 390; Department of Commerce; Competitive Grants.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Hardwick Harrell Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kirsh Limehouse Littlejohn Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Toole Umphlett Vick Weeks Whipper White Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Chalk Cotty Crawford Davenport Delleney Duncan Gullick Hagood Haley Harrison Haskins Knight Leach Lowe Lucas Mulvaney E. H. Pitts Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Viers Whitmire Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 49 Part 1B, Section 80A.31; Page 447; Budget and Control Board; Competitive Grants.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Hardwick Harrell Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Limehouse Littlejohn Lowe Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Scarborough Scott Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Toole Umphlett Vick Weeks White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Chalk Cotty Crawford Davenport Delleney Duncan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrison Haskins Hutson Knight Leach Lucas Mulvaney E. H. Pitts Sandifer Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Viers Walker Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 50 Part 1B, Section 80A.33; Pages 447-448; Budget and Control Board; Grants Review Committee.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Hardwick Harrell Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Limehouse Loftis Lowe Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Toole Umphlett Vick Weeks Whipper White Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Brady Chalk Cotty Crawford Davenport Delleney Duncan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrison Hutson Knight Leach Lucas Mulvaney E. H. Pitts Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Viers Walker Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 51 Part 1B; Section 89.87; Page 482; General Provisions; Competitive Grants Funds Carry Forward.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Hardwick Harrell Hart Harvin Hayes Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Limehouse Loftis Lowe Mack McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Taylor Toole Umphlett Vick Weeks Whipper White Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Brady Cotty Crawford Davenport Delleney Duncan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrison Haskins Hutson Knight Leach Lucas Mahaffey Mulvaney E. H. Pitts Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith W. D. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Thompson Viers Walker Whitmire Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 52 Part 1B; Section 89.94; Page 483; General Provisions; Homeland Security Projects.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Cotty Daning Dantzler Gambrell Gullick Hagood Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Hutson Jefferson Kelly Knight Limehouse Littlejohn Lucas Mack Mahaffey Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Umphlett Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Barfield Branham Clemmons Coleman Crawford Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Govan Haley Hiott Huggins Kennedy Kirsh Leach Loftis Lowe McLeod Mulvaney E. H. Pitts Rutherford Simrill G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Viers Walker
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 53 Part 1B; Section 89.96; Page 483; General Provisions; Employee Actions.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Battle Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clyburn Coleman Cooper Crawford Dantzler Edge Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hardwick Harrell Harrison Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Limehouse Littlejohn Lowe Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers F. N. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Vick Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Barfield Bedingfield Bingham Chalk Clemmons Cotty Daning Davenport Delleney Duncan Erickson Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Haskins Hiott Huggins Hutson Kirsh Knight Leach Loftis Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Mulvaney Owens Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
I abstained from voting on Veto No. 53 due to a possible conflict of interest.
Rep. Phillip Shoopman
Veto 54 Part 1B; Section 89.99; Page 483; General Provisions; I-95 Corridor Study.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Battle Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown Clyburn Cooper Funderburk Govan Hart Harvin Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Kennedy Limehouse Lucas Mack McLeod J. M. Neal Neilson Parks Phillips Rutherford Scott Sellers F. N. Smith J. E. Smith Spires Vick Weeks White Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bannister Barfield Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Coleman Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hiott Huggins Hutson Jennings Kelly Kirsh Knight Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Mahaffey Merrill Miller Moss Mulvaney Owens Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Whipper Whitmire Witherspoon Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 55 Part 1B; Section 89.100; Page 483; General Provision; Lt. Governor Security Detail.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Limehouse Loftis Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bedingfield Cato Crawford Duncan Erickson Hagood Haley Haskins Hutson Leach Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mulvaney Owens E. H. Pitts Rice Shoopman D. C. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 56 Part 1B, Section 89.103, Page 484; General Provisions; Attorney Dues.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Chalk Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Dantzler Delleney Edge Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McLeod Miller J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Vick Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Barfield Bedingfield Cato Clemmons Daning Davenport Duncan Erickson Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Haskins Hiott Hodges Huggins Hutson Kelly Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Mahaffey Merrill Moss Mulvaney Owens Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Shoopman Skelton D. C. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 57 Part IB; Section 90.12; Page 489; Item E; Department of Health and Human Services; Rural Hospital Grants; $3,000,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McLeod Miller Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Cotty Hagood Haskins Kirsh Leach Mulvaney Shoopman D. C. Smith Stewart
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
As I contract with and practice in hospitals that receive these funds, I abstained from voting on Veto No. 57, due to a conflict of interest.
Rep. Kris Crawford
Veto 58 Part IB; Section 90.12; Page 489; Item G; MUSC Disproportionate Share; $7,000,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Govan Hagood Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Hutson Jefferson Kelly Kennedy Knight Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Weeks Whipper Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Cotty Frye Gullick Kirsh Leach Mulvaney Rice Viers White
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 59 Part IB; Section 90.12; Page 490; Item C.4; Department of Disabilities and Special Needs; Greenwood Genetics Center; $3,500,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Littlejohn Lowe Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Sellers Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Cotty Frye Hagood Haley Kirsh Leach Lucas Mulvaney Shoopman D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stavrinakis Talley Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 60 Part 1B; Section 90.12; Statewide Revenue; Page 490; Item E.2.; Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services; State Block Grants; $500,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Allen Anthony Bales Bannister Battle Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley G. Brown Cato Chalk Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Daning Duncan Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hamilton Harrell Harrison Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Mack Mahaffey McLeod Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Perry Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rice Scott Skelton F. N. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Talley Taylor Vick White Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Ballentine Barfield Bedingfield Bingham Breeland R. Brown Clemmons Crawford Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Frye Hagood Haley Hardwick Hart Haskins Howard Huggins Leach Lucas Merrill Miller Mulvaney Parks E. H. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Sellers Shoopman Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks Whipper Whitmire Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 61 Part IB; Section 90.13; Page 491; Item (B)(4); Non-recurring Revenue; H12-Clemson University; LightRail; $700,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Chalk Davenport Frye Haskins Kirsh Mulvaney Simrill G. M. Smith Talley Umphlett Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 62 Part IB; Section 90.13; Page 491; Item (B)(5); Non-recurring Revenue; H27-University of South Carolina-Columbia; LightRail; $700,000.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Branham Brantley Breeland R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey Merrill Miller Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Shoopman Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Vick Walker Weeks White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Chalk Davenport Frye Haskins Kirsh Mulvaney Simrill G. M. Smith Talley Umphlett
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 during the vote on Veto No. 62. If I had been present, I would have voted to override the Veto.
Rep. Joan Brady
Veto 63 Part IB; Section 90.13; Page 491; Item (B)(6); Non-recurring Revenue; H51-Medical University of South Carolina; LightRail; $700,000.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Dantzler Delleney Duncan Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey Merrill Miller Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Shoopman Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Chalk Davenport Frye Haskins Kirsh Simrill Umphlett
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 64 Part IB; Section 90.13; Page 491; Item (B)(10); Non-recurring Revenue; P20-Clemson University-PSA; Operating expenses; $275,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Hart Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Vick Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Chalk Davenport Gullick Hagood Haley Haskins Kirsh Leach Limehouse Mulvaney G. R. Smith Stewart Umphlett Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 65 Part IB; Section 90.13; Page 491; Item (B)(14); Non-recurring Revenue; E23-Commission on Indigent Defense; Public Defenders & Staff; $3,993,844.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 20 Part 1B; Section 19.4; Pages 352-353; Paragraphs 1 and 2; Educational Television Commission; ETV: SC Educational Broadband Service Commission/Broadband License.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Kirsh
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. DUNCAN moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 15 was sustained, which was agreed to.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Gambrell Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Weeks Whipper White Williams Witherspoon
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Frye Funderburk Hart Haskins Kirsh Leach Lucas Owens Rice Scott D. C. Smith Stewart Talley Walker Whitmire
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. HAYES moved that the House do now adjourn.
Rep. MERRILL demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Brantley Cobb-Hunter Coleman Dantzler Harvin Hayes Kennedy Limehouse Scarborough
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Davenport Delleney Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Haskins Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jennings Kelly Kirsh Knight Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey Merrill Miller Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal Neilson Owens Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
So, the House refused to adjourn.
Rep. GOVAN moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 8 was sustained.
Rep. CRAWFORD moved to table the motion to reconsider.
Rep. CRAWFORD demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Ballentine Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Cato Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Erickson Frye Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Hutson Kelly Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Moss Mulvaney Owens Perry E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Scarborough Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Barfield Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clyburn Edge Funderburk Govan Hart Harvin Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Knight Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Pinson Rutherford Sandifer Scott Sellers J. E. Smith Stavrinakis Vick Weeks Whipper White Williams
So, the motion to reconsider was tabled.
Rep. HARRISON moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 29 was sustained.
Rep. COBB-HUNTER moved to table the motion to reconsider.
Rep. J. H. NEAL demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Anderson Bedingfield Bingham Cobb-Hunter Cotty Frye Gambrell Gullick Harrell Hiott Huggins Loftis McLeod Mulvaney Perry E. H. Pitts Rice Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith J. R. Smith Stewart Toole White
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Allen Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrison Hart Haskins Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rutherford Scarborough Scott Sellers Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Thompson Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper Whitmire Williams Young
So, the House refused to table the motion.
The question then recurred to the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.
Veto 29 Part 1B; Section 26.18; Page 375; Department of Social Services; C.R. Neal Learning Center.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Govan Haley Hardwick Harrison Hart Harvin Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kirsh Limehouse Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Pinson M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sandifer Scott Sellers F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Umphlett Weeks Whipper Whitmire Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Cobb-Hunter Cotty Frye Gambrell Gullick Hagood Hamilton Harrell Hiott Hutson Knight Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Merrill Moss Mulvaney Owens Perry E. H. Pitts Rice Scarborough Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Viers Walker White Witherspoon
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. LITTLEJOHN moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 28 was sustained, which was agreed to by a division vote of 68 to 24.
Veto 28 Part 1B; Section 21.40; Page 361; Health and Human Services; Nursing Services to High Risk/ High Tech Children.
Rep. LITTLEJOHN spoke against the Veto.
Rep. CRAWFORD spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stewart Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Williams 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.
Rep. CATO moved to reconsider the vote whereby debate was adjourned on the motion to reconsider on the following Act was taken up:
(R290) H. 4328 (Word version) --Reps. Harrison, Delleney, Haskins, G. M. Smith, Cotty, McLeod and Hart: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-23-505 SO AS TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS; BY ADDING SECTION 1-23-535 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT SHALL HAVE AN OFFICIAL SEAL; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-310, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, SO AS TO CHANGE A REFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-320, RELATING TO CONTESTED CASE HEARINGS, SO AS TO DELETE A PROVISION REGARDING THE HANDLING OF ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, PRODUCTION OF BOOKS, PAPERS, AND RECORDS, AND OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OR RELIEF FROM AN AGENCY SUBPOENA BEFORE THE COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-380, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AFTER EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT AND TO REVIEW BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE OF A FINAL DECISION IN A CONTESTED CASE TO CONFORM THE PROCEDURES TO OTHER PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-560, RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT SERVES AS THE SOLE GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND TO ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND SPOUSES TO ACCEPT INVITATIONS TO CERTAIN JUDICIAL-RELATED FUNCTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-600, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO HEARINGS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SO AS TO CONFORM THE PROCEDURES TO OTHER PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COURT AND TO PROHIBIT THE HEARING OF CERTAIN INMATE APPEALS BY THE COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-610, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SO AS TO CONFORM THE PROCEDURES TO OTHER PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COURT AND TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING APPROPRIATED MONIES TO BE USED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE INDEFINITELY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-640, RELATING TO THE VENUE WHERE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT CASES ARE HEARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CONTESTED CASES WILL BE HEARD AT THE PRINCIPAL OFFICES OR AT ANOTHER SUITABLE LOCATION UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rep. RICE demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown Cato Chalk Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Gambrell Govan Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Walker White Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Bales Bowers Brantley R. Brown Cotty Davenport Funderburk Hagood Hart Herbkersman Hutson Jennings Kelly McLeod Miller Parks Scott J. E. Smith Stavrinakis Weeks
So, the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R290) H. 4328 (Word version) --Reps. Harrison, Delleney, Haskins, G. M. Smith, Cotty, McLeod and Hart: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-23-505 SO AS TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS; BY ADDING SECTION 1-23-535 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT SHALL HAVE AN OFFICIAL SEAL; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-310, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, SO AS TO CHANGE A REFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-320, RELATING TO CONTESTED CASE HEARINGS, SO AS TO DELETE A PROVISION REGARDING THE HANDLING OF ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, PRODUCTION OF BOOKS, PAPERS, AND RECORDS, AND OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OR RELIEF FROM AN AGENCY SUBPOENA BEFORE THE COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-380, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AFTER EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT AND TO REVIEW BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE OF A FINAL DECISION IN A CONTESTED CASE TO CONFORM THE PROCEDURES TO OTHER PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-560, RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT SERVES AS THE SOLE GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND TO ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND SPOUSES TO ACCEPT INVITATIONS TO CERTAIN JUDICIAL-RELATED FUNCTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-600, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO HEARINGS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SO AS TO CONFORM THE PROCEDURES TO OTHER PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COURT AND TO PROHIBIT THE HEARING OF CERTAIN INMATE APPEALS BY THE COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-610, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SO AS TO CONFORM THE PROCEDURES TO OTHER PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COURT AND TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING APPROPRIATED MONIES TO BE USED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE INDEFINITELY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-640, RELATING TO THE VENUE WHERE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT CASES ARE HEARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CONTESTED CASES WILL BE HEARD AT THE PRINCIPAL OFFICES OR AT ANOTHER SUITABLE LOCATION UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rep. MCLEOD 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:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Gambrell Govan Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Hiott Huggins Jefferson Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bowers R. Brown Clyburn Cotty Davenport Erickson Funderburk Hagood Hart Harvin Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Hutson Jennings Kelly Mack McLeod Scott Sellers J. E. Smith Stavrinakis Whipper Williams
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. CATO moved to reconsider the vote whereby the Veto on the following Act was overridden:
(R290) H. 4328 (Word version) --Reps. Harrison, Delleney, Haskins, G. M. Smith, Cotty, McLeod and Hart: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-23-505 SO AS TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS; BY ADDING SECTION 1-23-535 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT SHALL HAVE AN OFFICIAL SEAL; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-310, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, SO AS TO CHANGE A REFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-320, RELATING TO CONTESTED CASE HEARINGS, SO AS TO DELETE A PROVISION REGARDING THE HANDLING OF ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, PRODUCTION OF BOOKS, PAPERS, AND RECORDS, AND OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OR RELIEF FROM AN AGENCY SUBPOENA BEFORE THE COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-380, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AFTER EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT AND TO REVIEW BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE OF A FINAL DECISION IN A CONTESTED CASE TO CONFORM THE PROCEDURES TO OTHER PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-560, RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT SERVES AS THE SOLE GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND TO ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND SPOUSES TO ACCEPT INVITATIONS TO CERTAIN JUDICIAL-RELATED FUNCTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-600, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO HEARINGS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SO AS TO CONFORM THE PROCEDURES TO OTHER PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COURT AND TO PROHIBIT THE HEARING OF CERTAIN INMATE APPEALS BY THE COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-610, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SO AS TO CONFORM THE PROCEDURES TO OTHER PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COURT AND TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING APPROPRIATED MONIES TO BE USED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE INDEFINITELY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-640, RELATING TO THE VENUE WHERE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT CASES ARE HEARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CONTESTED CASES WILL BE HEARD AT THE PRINCIPAL OFFICES OR AT ANOTHER SUITABLE LOCATION UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rep. CATO moved to table the motion to reconsider.
Rep. SELLERS demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anthony Bales Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Branham G. Brown Cato Chalk Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Gambrell Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Hiott Hodges Huggins Jefferson Kennedy Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Anderson Ballentine Bowers Breeland R. Brown Clyburn Cotty Davenport Erickson Funderburk Hagood Hart Herbkersman Hosey Howard Hutson Jennings Kelly Mack McLeod Miller Neilson Scott Sellers J. E. Smith Whipper
So, the motion to reconsider was tabled.
The Senate Amendments to the following Joint Resolution were taken up for consideration:
H. 4899 (Word version) --Reps. Edge, Ott, Crawford, Whipper, Huggins, Alexander, Anthony, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Brady, Branham, Cato, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Davenport, Duncan, Erickson, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan, Gullick, Hardwick, Hayes, Hosey, Jennings, Leach, Limehouse, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Moss, Mulvaney, J. H. Neal, Parks, Perry, Pinson, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Sandifer, Scott, Sellers, Shoopman, Simrill, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Stavrinakis, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Viers, White, Witherspoon and Mitchell: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO CREATE A COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE THE DELIVERY OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO REPORT ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY JANUARY 1, 2009.
Rep. EDGE moved to adjourn debate upon the Senate Amendments until Wednesday, June 4, which was agreed to.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 5090 (Word version) --Rep. Vick: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-180, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE AND NAME CERTAIN VOTING PRECINCTS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, TO DESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER ON WHICH LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO PROVIDE THAT POLLING PLACES FOR THESE PRECINCTS MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
S. 96 (Word version) --Senators Sheheen and Fair: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 6, TITLE 61 OF THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 61-6-4155, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO USE, OFFER FOR USE, PURCHASE, OFFER TO PURCHASE, SELL, OFFER TO SELL, OR POSSESS AN ALCOHOL WITHOUT LIQUID DEVICE, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES AND EXCEPTIONS.
Rep. MERRILL made the Point of Order that the Senate Amendments were improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 3880 (Word version) --Reps. W. D. Smith, Hagood, Mitchell and McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 7, CHAPTER 56, TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE BROWNFIELDS/VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAM, SO AS TO REVISE THE LIABILITY PROTECTION PROVIDED TO PARTIES WHO ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION OF PROPERTY AND WHO SUBSEQUENTLY BECOME RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY; TO FURTHER SPECIFY THE SCOPE OF A COVENANT NOT TO SUE PROVIDED TO PARTIES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION OF PROPERTY; TO SPECIFY THAT PROPERTY ON TO WHICH A RELEASE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OCCURRED IS PROPERTY ELIGIBLE FOR PARTICIPATION IN THIS VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAM; TO FURTHER SPECIFY THE CONTENTS OF A VOLUNTARY CLEANUP CONTRACT AND GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT; TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THIS PROGRAM; AND TO CONFORM PROVISIONS IN THIS ARTICLE TO THE REVISIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THIS ACT.
Rep. MERRILL made the Point of Order that the Senate Amendments were improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
S. 472 (Word version) --Senators Lourie, Courson, Vaughn, Alexander, Sheheen, Ryberg, Williams, Leventis, Cleary, Drummond, Mescher, Cromer, Hayes, Verdin, Grooms and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2941 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE INSTALLATION OF IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES, TO PROVIDE THAT IN ADDITION TO OTHER PENALTIES IMPOSED ON A PERSON VIOLATING IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE THE PERSON TO HAVE AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE INSTALLED ON ANY VEHICLE REGISTERED AND LICENSED IN HIS NAME OR IN THE NAME OF A MEMBER OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY, TO PROVIDE THAT THE COURT MAY WAIVE THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENT FOR AN OFFENDER WHO HAS A MEDICAL CONDITION THAT MAKES HIM INCAPABLE OF PROPERLY OPERATING THE DEVICE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE MUST BE INSTALLED, TO PROVIDE THAT THE OFFENDER MUST HAVE HIS IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE INSPECTED EVERY SIXTY DAYS TO VERIFY THAT IT IS AFFIXED TO THE VEHICLE AND OPERATING PROPERLY, TO PROVIDE THAT THE COURT MUST GIVE THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES NOTICE OF AN ORDER IMPOSING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT, TO PROVIDE A PROCESS BY WHICH A FOURTH OFFENDER MAY HAVE THE DEVICE REMOVED, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON REQUIRED TO HAVE AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE ENDORSEMENT ON HIS LICENSE TO OPERATE A VEHICLE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE, TO PROVIDE THAT AN OFFENDER WHOSE JOB REQUIRES HIM TO DRIVE A VEHICLE OWNED BY HIS EMPLOYER MAY OPERATE THE EMPLOYER'S VEHICLE WITHOUT AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE INSTALLED, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO TAMPER WITH OR DISABLE AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE, OR TO ATTEMPT TO TAMPER WITH OR DISABLE AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OFFENDER OR ANOTHER PERSON TO SOLICIT OR REQUEST SOMEONE TO ENGAGE AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE TO START A MOTOR VEHICLE, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENGAGE AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE TO START A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR AN OFFENDER, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES IS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CERTIFICATION, USE, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATIONS OF INTERLOCK IGNITION DEVICES, TO PROVIDE THAT ONLY CERTIFIED DEVICES MAY BE USED, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MUST CERTIFY ALL BREATH TESTING IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES THAT MEET FEDERAL STANDARDS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MUST MAINTAIN A LIST OF CERTIFIED DEVICES AND MANUFACTURERS, TO REQUIRE THAT DECERTIFIED DEVICES MUST BE REPLACED, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MUST MAKE AVAILABLE ON ITS INTERNET WEB SITE ITS POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-400, TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES RETURNS OR ISSUES A NEW LICENSE TO AN OFFENDER WHOSE LICENSE WAS SUSPENDED FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICANTS, THE LICENSE MUST CONTAIN A CONSPICUOUS ENDORSEMENT IDENTIFYING THE LICENSEE AS A PERSON WHO MAY ONLY DRIVE A VEHICLE WITH AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE INSTALLED; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2959, TO PROVIDE THAT SLED NO LONGER HAS TO POST CERTAIN INFORMATION CONCERNING IGNITION INTERLOCK SYSTEMS ON ITS INTERNET WEB SITE.
Rep. MERRILL made the Point of Order that the Senate Amendments were improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 4766 (Word version) --Reps. Lowe, Merrill, Crawford, Ballentine, Cobb-Hunter, Hagood, Harrell, Limehouse, E. H. Pitts, Scarborough, Spires, Young, Brady, R. Brown and Mulvaney: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 48-52-620, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENERGY CONSERVATION PLANS FOR STATE AGENCIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION REDUCTION GOALS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FROM ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR AN AGENCY IMPLEMENTING ALL AVAILABLE, COST-EFFECTIVE ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES, AND TO DEFINE THE TERM "ENERGY CONSUMPTION"; TO AMEND SECTION 48-52-640, RELATING TO PURCHASE OF ENERGY CONSERVATION PRODUCTS BY A STATE AGENCY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE ENERGY OFFICE MAY CERTIFY FOR PROCUREMENT ONLY A PRODUCT THAT MEETS OR EXCEEDS FEDERAL ENERGY STAR STANDARDS, AND TO REQUIRE REPLACEMENT OF AN INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULB USED BY A STATE AGENCY WITH A COMPACT FLUORESCENT BULB WHEN THE INCANDESCENT BULB NEEDS REPLACING, AMONG OTHER THINGS.
Rep. MERRILL made the Point of Order that the Senate Amendments were improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
S. 1141 (Word version) --Senators McConnell, Rankin, Martin, Leventis, Peeler, Alexander, Hayes, Setzler, Hutto, Ceips, Knotts and Malloy: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2110, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CALCULATION OF TAX ON MANUFACTURED HOMES, SO AS TO REFINE THE DEFINITION OF A MANUFACTURED HOME THAT IS SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM SALES TAX BECAUSE IT MEETS CERTAIN ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 52, TITLE 48, BY ADDING ARTICLE 10 SO AS TO ESTABLISH AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT MANUFACTURED HOMES IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
Rep. MERRILL made the Point of Order that the Senate Amendments were improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
S. 1143 (Word version) --Senators McConnell, Martin, Alexander, Hayes, Hutto, Ceips, Peeler, Leventis, Rankin, Setzler, Knotts and Malloy: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE STATE SALES TAX, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF SALES OR THE SALES PRICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES.
Rep. MERRILL moved to adjourn debate upon the Senate Amendments until Wednesday, June 4, which was agreed to.
The following House Resolution was taken up:
H. 5037 (Word version) --Rep. Funderburk: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO URGE THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THE PRISONER OF WAR - MISSING IN ACTION ISSUE REGARDING UNRESOLVED MATTERS PERTAINING TO UNITED STATES PERSONNEL UNACCOUNTED FOR FROM THIS NATION'S WARS AND CONFLICTS BEGINNING WITH WORLD WAR II.
Whereas, the Prisoner of War - Missing in Action (POW/MIA) issue has been a national dilemma since the end of World War II; and
Whereas, there is a strong need for an independent investigation into all unresolved matters relating to any United States personnel unaccounted for from the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, the Cold War, the Gulf Wars, and other conflicts including MIAs and POWs; and
Whereas, it is the responsibility and the duty of the United States government to bring home Americans missing in action from these conflicts; and
Whereas, as of July 2005, the Government Accountability Office listed over eighty-eight thousand service men and women unaccounted for from World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf Wars, and other conflicts; and
Whereas, American POWs and their missing comrades have demonstrated the true spirit of our nation and should never be forgotten; and
Whereas, the families of these inspiring Americans deserve to know what truly happened to their loved ones; and
Whereas, Americans from every generation have answered the call to duty with dedication and valor. These brave Americans deserve the respect and gratitude of our nation and all efforts should be made to resolve the Prisoner of War - Missing in Action issue in their honor. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives, by this resolution, urge the United States Congress to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Prisoner of War - Missing in Action issue regarding unresolved matters pertaining to United States personnel unaccounted for from this nation's wars and conflicts beginning with World War II.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, the United States Senate and House of Representatives, and the members of the South Carolina Congressional Delegation.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up:
S. 1333 (Word version) --Senator Setzler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ON AGING TO CONVENE A PURPLE RIBBON ALZHEIMER'S TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE CURRENT AND FUTURE IMPACT OF ALZHEIMER'S IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO ASSESS THE RESOURCES FOR AND NEEDS OF PERSONS WITH ALZHEIMER'S AND RELATED DISORDERS SO AS TO DEVELOP A STATE STRATEGY TO ADDRESS THIS HEALTH ISSUE.
Whereas, Alzheimer's disease is a slow, progressive disorder of the brain that results in loss of memory and other cognitive function and, eventually, results in death; and
Whereas, with one in eight people over age sixty-five and almost one in every two people over eighty-five having Alzheimer's disease and related disorders, the number of South Carolinians with Alzheimer's disease or related dementia (with or without diagnosis) is expected to increase nineteen percent from 67,000 in 2000 to 80,000 in 2010; and
Whereas, an in-depth study of Alzheimer's and the needs and resources required to address this issue has not been conducted in this State in over fourteen years, and, consequently, it is incumbent upon the State to assess the current and future impact of Alzheimer's disease in South Carolina and the programs and services needed to ensure an integrated, comprehensive, coordinated, and up-to-date strategy to address the needs of this growing segment of the population. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the South Carolina General Assembly, by this resolution, requests the Lieutenant Governor's Office on Aging to convene a Purple Ribbon Alzheimer's Task Force to assess the current and future impact of Alzheimer's disease in South Carolina, to examine the existing services and resources addressing the needs of persons with Alzheimer's, their families and caregivers, and to develop a comprehensive strategy to provide a state response to this public health crisis.
Be it further resolved that the Purple Ribbon Alzheimer's Task Force is composed of 20 members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor to include:
(1) one member of the South Carolina Senate;
(2) one member of the South Carolina House of Representatives;
(3) one person with Alzheimer's disease or a related disorder;
(4) one caregiver of a person with Alzheimer's disease;
(5) one member representing the State at-large;
(6) one member from the nursing facility industry;
(7) one member from the assisted living industry;
(8) one member from the adult day services industry;
(9) one member from the medical care provider community;
(10) one member from the nursing community;
(11) one member who specializes in Alzheimer's disease research;
(12) one member representing the Alzheimer's Disease Registry;
(13) one member representing the Alzheimer's Association;
(14) the director of the SC Department of Mental Health or his designee;
(15) the director of the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs or his designee;
(16) the director of the Department of Health and Environmental Control or his designee;
(17) the director of the Department of Health and Human Services or his designee;
(18) the director of the Lieutenant Governor's Office on Aging;
(19) one member representing the law enforcement community;
(20) one member representing labor and workforce development.
The director of the Lieutenant Governor's Office on Aging shall serve as chairman of the task force. Members of the task force shall service without compensation. The Purple Ribbon Alzheimer's Task Force shall be so named for the color of Alzheimer's disease awareness.
Be it further resolved that the Purple Ribbon Alzheimer's Task Force include in its assessment and recommendations an examination of:
(1) the Alzheimer's population needs, including, but not limited to, state policy and the role of the State in meeting these needs;
(2) existing services, resources, and capacity, for serving persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders;
(3) changes needed to state policies and resources, including, but not limited to, providing coordinated services and support to persons and families living with Alzheimer's and related disorders and strategies to address any identified gaps in services.
Be it further resolved that the Purple Ribbon Alzheimer's Task Force is requested to develop a report and date-specific recommendations for responding to the task force findings, which the Office of Aging shall provide to the General Assembly and Governor no later than March 1, 2009, at which time the Office on Aging shall disband the task force.
Be if further resolved that the Office on Aging is requested to monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Purple Ribbon Alzheimer's Task Force and to keep the General Assembly apprised of the progress of these matters.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and sent to the Senate.
The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up:
H. 5232 (Word version) --Rep. Talley: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE BRIDGE THAT CROSSES THE CSX RAILROAD TRACKS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY ALONG SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 215 THE "M. D. PUTNAM BRIDGE" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS BRIDGE THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "M. D. PUTNAM BRIDGE".
Whereas, Mr. M. D. Putnam, Sr. is a 1935 graduate of Woodruff High School, received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of South Carolina in 1940, and earned a master's degree from Furman University in 1955; and
Whereas, from 1940 to 1983, he held numerous positions in the state's public school system that included teacher, principal, director of instruction, and interim superintendent of schools; and
Whereas, since 1953, Mr. Putnam has been an active member of the Roebuck Baptist Church; and
Whereas, one of his greatest accomplishments was heading the "Biscuit Busters", a defunct group composed mostly of retirees who met at what was once known as the "new" Hardee's in Roebuck; and
Whereas, Mr. Putnam has distinguished himself as a community leader with the gift of bringing people together; and
Whereas, it is fitting and proper for the members of the General Assembly to recognize Mr. M. D. Putnam's many accomplishments by having a bridge in Spartanburg named in his honor. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the members of the South Carolina General Assembly request that the Department of Transportation name the bridge that crosses the CSX Railroad tracks in Spartanburg County along South Carolina Highway 215 the "M. D. Putnam Bridge" and erect appropriate markers or signs at this bridge that contain the words "M. D. Putnam Bridge".
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Department of Transportation.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and sent to the Senate.
The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up:
S. 1421 (Word version) --Senators Matthews and Hutto: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF BOULEVARD STREET IN THE CITY OF ORANGEBURG FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 21 TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 33 "WEBBER BOULEVARD" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ALONG THIS PORTION OF HIGHWAY THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "WEBBER BOULEVARD".
Whereas, the late Professor Paul R. Webber, Jr. was born in the Town of Gadsden in 1911 and died in 1991; and
Whereas, his wife Dr. Clemmie E. Webber was born in the Town of St. Matthews in 1913; and
Whereas, the Webbers were married in 1935 and together raised three children; and
Whereas, Paul Webber was a highly regarded resident of Orangeburg who served as an outstanding Professor of Economics and assistant football coach at South Carolina State University for many years; and
Whereas, Dr. Clemmie E. Webber has distinguished herself in the Orangeburg community as an outstanding professor at South Carolina State University and as an accomplished humanitarian through her involvement in a number of civic organizations; and
Whereas, it is fitting and proper to honor the memory of Professor Paul R. Webber, Jr. and recognize Dr. Clemmie E. Webber for her past and present works in the Orangeburg community by having a portion of Boulevard Street in the City of Orangeburg named for this exceptional couple. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the members of the General Assembly, by this resolution, request that the Department of Transportation name the portion of Boulevard Street in the City of Orangeburg from its intersection with United States Highway 21 to its intersection with South Carolina Highway 33 "Webber Boulevard" and erect appropriate markers or signs along this portion of highway that contain the words "Webber Boulevard".
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Department of Transportation.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and sent to the Senate.
The motion period was dispensed with on motion of Rep. CRAWFORD.
Rep. CRAWFORD moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, June 4, which was adopted:
S. 918 (Word version) --Senator Cromer: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-43-190 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE CENTRAL FILL PHARMACIES TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THIS STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILLING PRESCRIPTIONS FOR, AND AT THE REQUEST OF, ANOTHER PHARMACY; TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN OPERATING PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR CENTRAL FILL PHARMACIES, INCLUDING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, OBTAINING A CENTRAL FILL PHARMACY PERMIT AND A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES REGISTRATION, NOTIFYING PATIENTS OF CENTRAL FILL PROCESSING PROCEDURES, REQUIRING WRITTEN PRESCRIPTION DRUG INFORMATION AND A TOLL-FREE NUMBER, PROVIDING PRESCRIPTION LABELING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS, AND REQUIRING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUALS.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 1106 (Word version) --Senators McConnell and Campsen: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 27 TO TITLE 7 SO AS TO CODIFY THE PROVISIONS OF LAW THAT CREATED AND COMBINED VARIOUS COUNTY BOARDS OF REGISTRATION AND ELECTION COMMISSIONS INTO A SINGLE ENTITY, TO PROVIDE THAT THOSE COUNTIES THAT DO NOT HAVE COMBINED BOARDS OF REGISTRATION AND ELECTION COMMISSIONS MUST HAVE THEIR SEPARATE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 7-5-10 AND 7-13-70.
Rep. CLEMMONS explained the Bill.
Pursuant to Rule 7.7 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 Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford Sandifer Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the Bill was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
Rep. CRAWFORD moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, June 4, which was adopted:
H. 4309 (Word version) --Reps. Harrison, Harrell, G. M. Smith, Delleney, Leach, Haley, Young, Duncan, Haskins, Talley, G. R. Smith, Taylor, Cotty, Walker and Simrill: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 24-13-100, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "NO PAROLE OFFENSE", SO AS TO REVISE ITS DEFINITION TO INCLUDE CLASS D, E, AND F FELONIES, OFFENSES CLASSIFIED AS EXEMPT WHICH ARE PUNISHABLE BY A MAXIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR, AND CLASS A AND B MISDEMEANORS, TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO IS FOUND GUILTY OF, PLEADS GUILTY TO, OR PLEADS NOLO CONTENDRE TO A "NO PAROLE OFFENSE" IS ELIGIBLE FOR EARLY RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION DO NOT AFFECT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ACT.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 890 (Word version) --Senators Malloy, McConnell, Ford, Rankin, Knotts, Cleary, Hawkins, O'Dell, Hayes, Elliott, Cromer and Ceips: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-620, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OFFENDERS BEING REQUIRED TO SUBMIT SAMPLES FOR INCLUSION IN THE DNA DATABASE, SO AS TO REQUIRE SAMPLES UPON LAWFUL CUSTODIAL ARREST FOR A FELONY OFFENSE, OFFENSE THAT CARRIES A SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS OR MORE, OR AN ARREST FOR EAVESDROPPING, PEEPING, OR STALKING, AND AT THE TIME OF INTAKE AT A JAIL OR PRISON, TO PROVIDE THAT THESE PROVISIONS APPLY TO JUVENILES, AND TO REQUIRE SAMPLES TO BE PROVIDED BEFORE A PERSON IS RELEASED ON PAROLE, RELEASED FROM CONFINEMENT, OR RELEASED FROM AN AGENCY'S JURISDICTION; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-630, RELATING TO PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE DNA SAMPLES AND THEIR IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY, SO AS TO DELETE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE PERSONS AUTHORIZED MUST BE CERTAIN TYPES OF HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND TO PROVIDE THAT THEY MUST BE APPROPRIATELY TRAINED; TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-650, RELATING TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF DNA, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR COORDINATION BETWEEN SLED AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO PREVENT COLLECTION AND PROCESSING OF DUPLICATE DNA SAMPLES; TO AMEND SECTIONS 23-3-660 AND 23-3-670, RELATING TO EXPUNGEMENTS AND FEES FOR DNA SAMPLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR EXPUNGEMENT AT NO COST TO THE ACCUSED WHEN CHARGES ARE DISMISSED, NOLLE PROSSED, OR REDUCED BELOW THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE TAKING OF THE DNA SAMPLE, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE WILL PAY FOR THE COSTS OF COLLECTING AND PROCESSING A DNA SAMPLE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT FEES COLLECTED FROM CONVICTED PERSONS SHALL BE REMITTED TO THE GENERAL FUND OF THE STATE AND CREDITED TO THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 23-3-120, RELATING TO THE TAKING OF FINGERPRINTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PLACE AND TIMING FOR THE FINGERPRINTING OF A PERSON PLACED UNDER CUSTODIAL ARREST.
The Judiciary Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name COUNCIL\SWB\5553CM08):
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/ SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the "South Carolina Protection from Violence Against Women and Children Act".
SECTION 2. Chapter 3, Title 23 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 23-3-615. As used in this article:
(A) 'DNA sample' means the tissue, saliva, blood, or any other bodily fluid taken at the time of arrest from which identifiable information can be obtained;
(B) 'DNA profile' means the results of any testing performed on a DNA sample; and
(C) 'DNA record' means the tissue or saliva samples and the results of the testing performed on the samples."
SECTION 3. Section 23-3-620 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 23-3-620. (A) Following sentencing and at the time of intake at a jail or prison a lawful custodial arrest, the service of a courtesy summons, or a direct indictment for:
(1) a felony offense or an offense that is punishable by a sentence of five years or more; or
(2) eavesdropping, peeping, or stalking,
any of which are committed in this State, a person, except for any juvenile, arrested or ordered by a court must provide a saliva or tissue sample from which DNA may be obtained for inclusion in the State DNA Database must be provided by:. Additionally, any person ordered to do so by a court must provide a saliva or tissue sample from which DNA may be obtained for inclusion in the State DNA Database.
(1) any person convicted or adjudicated delinquent and incarcerated in a state correctional facility on or after July 1, 2004, for:
(a) eavesdropping or peeping (Section 16-17-470); or
(b) any offense classified as a felony in Section 16-1-90 or any other offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years or more; and
(2) any criminal offender convicted or adjudicated delinquent on or after July 1, 2004, who is ordered by the court to provide a sample.
(B) A convicted offender who is required to provide a DNA sample under subsections (A)(1) or (A)(2) but who is not sentenced to a term of confinement must provide a sample as a condition of his sentence. This sample must be taken at a prison, jail, sheriff's office that serves a courtesy summons, courthouse where a direct presentment indictment is served, or other location as specified by the sentencing court detention facility at the time the person is booked and processed into the jail or detention facility following the custodial arrest, or other location when the taking of fingerprints is required prior to a conviction. The sample must be submitted to SLED as directed by SLED. If appropriately trained personnel are not available to take a sample from which DNA may be obtained, the failure of the arrested person to provide a DNA sample shall not be the sole basis for refusal to release the person from custody. An arrested person who is released from custody before providing a DNA sample must provide a DNA sample at a location specified by the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the offense on or before the first court appearance.
(C)(B) At such time as possible and before parole or release Unless a sample has already been provided pursuant to the provisions of subsection (A), before a person may be paroled or released from confinement, the person must provide a suitable sample from which DNA may be obtained for inclusion in the State DNA Database must be provided by:
(1) a person who was convicted or adjudicated delinquent before July 1, 2004, and who was sentenced to and is serving a term of confinement on or after July 1, 2004, for:
(a) eavesdropping or peeping (Section 16-17-470); or
(b) any offense classified as a felony in Section 16-1-90 or any other offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years or more; and
(2) any criminal offender ordered by the court who was convicted or adjudicated delinquent before July 1, 2004, and who was sentenced to and is serving a term of confinement on or after July 1, 2004.
(D)(C) An agency having custody of an offender who is required to provide a DNA sample under pursuant to subsection (C)(1) or (C)(2) (B) must notify SLED at least three days, excluding weekends and holidays, before the individual person is paroled or released from confinement.
(E)(D) At such time as possible and Unless a sample has already been provided pursuant to the provisions of subsection (A), before release a person is released from confinement or release released from the agency's jurisdiction, a suitable sample from which DNA may be obtained for inclusion in the State DNA Database must be provided as a condition of probation or parole by:
(1) a person convicted or adjudicated delinquent before July 1, 2004, who is serving a probated sentence or is paroled on or after July 1, 2004, for:
(a) eavesdropping or peeping (Section 16-17-470); or
(b) any offense classified as a felony in Section 16-1-90 or any other offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years or more; and
(2) any criminal offender ordered by the court who was convicted or adjudicated delinquent before July 1, 2004, and who is serving a probated sentence or is paroled on or after July 1, 2004.
(F) A person who provides a sample pursuant to this article also must provide any other information as may be required by SLED.
(G)(E) A person required to provide a sample pursuant to this section may be required to provide another sample if the original sample is lost, damaged, contaminated, or unusable for examination prior to the creation of a DNA record or DNA profile suitable for inclusion in the DNA Database.
(H)(F) The provisions of this section apply to juveniles notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20-7-8510."
SECTION 4. Section 23-3-630 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 23-3-630. (A) Only a correctional health nurse technician, physician, registered professional nurse, licensed practical nurse, laboratory technician, or other an appropriately trained health care worker person may take a sample from which DNA may be obtained.
(B) A person taking a sample pursuant to this article is immune from liability if the sample was taken according to recognized medical procedures. However, no person is relieved from liability for negligence in the taking of any blood a sample."
SECTION 5. Section 23-3-650 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 23-3-650. (A) The DNA sample record and the results of a DNA profile of an individual provided under this article are confidential and must be securely stored, except that SLED must make available the results to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and to approved crime laboratories which serve these agencies and to the solicitor or the solicitor's designee upon a written or electronic request and in furtherance of an official investigation of a criminal offense. These records and results or the DNA sample of an individual also must be made available as required by a court order following a hearing directing SLED to release the record or sample results. However, SLED must not make the DNA record or the DNA profile available to any entity that is not a law enforcement agency of any state or of the United States unless instructed to do so by order of a court with competent jurisdiction.
(B) To prevent duplications of DNA samples, SLED must coordinate with any law enforcement agency obtaining a DNA sample to determine whether a DNA sample from the person under lawful custodial arrest has been previously obtained and is in the DNA Database.
(B)(C) A person who wilfully discloses in any manner individually identifiable DNA information contained in the State DNA Database to a person or agency not entitled to receive this information is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred ten thousand dollars or three times the amount of any financial gain realized by the person, whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than one year five years, or both.
(C)(D) A person who, without authorization, wilfully obtains individually identifiable DNA information from the State DNA Database is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred ten thousand dollars or three times the amount of any financial gain realized by the person, whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than one year five years, or both."
SECTION 6. Section 23-3-660 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 23-3-660. (A) A person whose DNA record or DNA profile has been included in the State DNA Database may request expungement on the grounds that must have his DNA record and his DNA profile expunged if:
(1) the charges pending against the person who has been arrested or ordered to submit a sample:
(a) have been nolle prossed;
(b) have been dismissed; or
(c) have been reduced below the requirement for inclusion in the State DNA Database; or
(2) the person has been found not guilty, or the person's conviction or adjudication has been reversed, set aside, or vacated.
(B) The solicitor in the county in which the person was charged must notify the person in writing, on a form created by South Carolina Court Administration, and must notify SLED when the person becomes eligible to have his DNA record and DNA profile expunged. Upon receiving this notification, SLED must begin the expungement procedure.
(C) SLED, at no cost to the person, shall must purge DNA and all other identifiable record information and the DNA profile from the State Database and shall must destroy the person's sample if SLED receives the person's written request for expungement and either:
(1) a document certified:
(a) by a circuit court judge,
(b) by a prosecuting agency, or
(c) by a clerk of court
that must be produced to the requestor at no charge within fourteen days after the request is made and after one of the events in subsection (A) has occurred, and no new trial has been ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
(2) a certified copy of the court order finding the person not guilty, or reversing, setting aside, or vacating the conviction or adjudication and proof that the identity of the individual making the request is the person whose record is to be expunged. If the person has more than one entry in the State DNA Database, only the entry covered by the expungement request may be expunged.
(D) The person's entry in the State DNA Database shall not be removed if the person has another qualifying offense.
(E) The jail intake officer, sheriff's office employee, courthouse employee, or detention facility intake officer shall provide written notification to the person of his right to have his DNA record and DNA profile expunged and the procedure for the expungement pursuant to this section at the time that the person's saliva or tissue sample is taken. The written notification must include that the person is eligible to have his DNA record and his DNA profile expunged at no cost to the person when:
(1) the charges pending against the person are:
(a) nolle prossed;
(b) dismissed; or
(c) reduced below the requirement for inclusion in the State DNA Database; or
(2) when the person has been found not guilty, or the person's conviction has been reversed, set aside, or vacated.
(F) When SLED completes the expungement process, SLED must notify the person whose DNA record and DNA profile have been expunged and inform him, in writing, that the expungement process has been completed."
SECTION 7. Section 23-3-670 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 23-3-670. (A) The cost of collection supplies for processing a sample pursuant to this article must be paid by the general fund of the State. A person who is required to provide a sample pursuant to this article, upon conviction, pleading guilty or nolo contendere, or forfeiting bond, must pay a two hundred and fifty dollar processing fee which may not be waived by the court. However:
(1) If if the person is incarcerated, the fee must be paid before the person is paroled or released from confinement and may be garnished from wages the person earns while incarcerated.; and
(2) If if the person is not sentenced to a term of confinement, payment of the fee must be a condition of the person's sentence and may be paid in installments if so ordered by the court.
(B) The processing fee assessed pursuant to this section must be remitted to the general fund of the State and credited to the State Law Enforcement Division to offset the expenses SLED incurs in carrying out the provisions of this article."
SECTION 8. Section 23-3-120(B) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(B) A person subjected to a lawful custodial arrest for a state offense must be fingerprinted at the time the person is booked and processed into a jail or detention facility or other location when the taking of fingerprints is required. Fingerprints taken by a law enforcement agency or detention facility pursuant to this section must be submitted to the State Law Enforcement Division's Central Record Repository within three days, excluding weekends and holidays, for the purposes of identifying record subjects and establishing criminal history record information."
SECTION 9. Section 23-3-640 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 23-3-640. (A) Samples must be taken and submitted to SLED pursuant to specifications and procedures developed by SLED in regulation. SLED must conduct DNA identification testing, typing, and analysis in accordance with regulations promulgated by the State Law Enforcement Division on samples received for the purpose of developing a DNA profile, and SLED must use procedures, equipment, supplies, and computer software that are compatible with those used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(B) The DNA profile on a sample may be used:
(1) to develop a convicted offender database to identify suspects in otherwise nonsuspect cases;
(2) to develop a population database when personal identifying information is removed;
(3) to support identification research and protocol development of forensic DNA analysis methods;
(4) to generate investigative leads in criminal investigations;
(5) for quality control or quality assurance purposes, or both;
(6) to assist in the recovery and identification of human remains from mass disasters;
(7) for other humanitarian purposes including identification of missing persons.
(C) The disposition of all samples obtained pursuant to this article is at the discretion of SLED. Once the DNA profile has been placed into the DNA Database, SLED must immediately destroy the DNA sample.
(D) SLED must securely store DNA samples. The samples are confidential and must remain in the custody of SLED or a private laboratory designated by SLED if the laboratory's standards for confidentiality and security are at least as stringent as those of SLED.
SECTION 10. Title 17 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
Section 17-28-10. This article may be cited as the 'Access to Justice Post-Conviction DNA Testing Act'.
Section 17-28-20. For purposes of this article:
(1) 'Biological material' means any blood, tissue, hair, saliva, bone, or semen from which DNA marker groupings may be obtained. This includes material catalogued separately on slides, swabs, or test tubes or present on other evidence including, but not limited to, clothing, ligatures, bedding, other household material, drinking cups, or cigarettes.
(2) 'Custodian of evidence' means an agency or political subdivision of the State including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency, a solicitor's office, the Attorney General's Office, a county clerk of court, or a state grand jury that possesses and is responsible for the control of evidence during a criminal investigation or proceeding, or a person ordered by a court to take custody of evidence during a criminal investigation or proceeding.
(3) 'DNA' means deoxyribonucleic acid.
(4) 'Incarceration' means serving a term of confinement in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections or the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and does not include a person on probation, parole, or under a community supervision program.
(5) 'Law enforcement agency' means a lawfully established federal, state, or local public agency that is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of penal, traffic, regulatory, game, immigration, postal, customs, or controlled substances laws.
(6) 'Physical evidence' means an object, thing, or substance that is or is about to be produced or used or has been produced or used in a criminal proceeding related to an offense enumerated in Section 17-28-30, and that is in the possession of a custodian of evidence.
Section 17-28-30. (A) A person who pled not guilty to at least one of the following offenses, was subsequently convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for the offense, is currently incarcerated for the offense, and asserts he is innocent of the offense, may apply for forensic DNA testing of his DNA and any physical evidence or biological material related to his conviction or adjudication:
(1) murder (Section 16-3-10);
(2) killing by poison (Section 16-3-30);
(3) killing by stabbing or thrusting (Section 16-3-40);
(4) voluntary manslaughter (Section 16-3-50);
(5) homicide by child abuse (Section 16-3-85(A)(1));
(6) aiding and abetting a homicide by child abuse (Section 16-3-85(A)(2));
(7) lynching in the first degree (Section 16-3-210);
(8) killing in a duel (Section 16-3-430);
(9) spousal sexual battery (Section 16-3-615);
(10) criminal sexual conduct in the first degree (Section 16-3-652);
(11) criminal sexual conduct in the second degree (Section 16-3-653);
(12) criminal sexual conduct in the third degree (Section 16-3-654);
(13) criminal sexual conduct with a minor (Section 16-3-655);
(14) arson in the first degree resulting in death (Section 16-11-110(A));
(15) burglary in the first degree for which the person is sentenced to ten years or more (Section 16-11-311(B));
(16) armed robbery for which the person is sentenced to ten years or more (Section 16-11-330(A));
(17) damaging or destroying a building, vehicle, or property by means of an explosive incendiary resulting in death (Section 16-11-540);
(18) abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult resulting in death (Section 43-35-85(F));
(19) sexual misconduct with an inmate, patient, or offender (Section 44-23-1150);
(20) unlawful removing or damaging of an airport facility or equipment resulting in death (Section 55-1-30(3));
(21) interference with traffic-control devices or railroad signs or signals resulting in death (Section 56-5-1030(B)(3));
(22) driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs resulting in death (Section 56-5-2945);
(23) obstruction of railroad resulting in death (Section 58-17-4090); or
(24) accessory before the fact (Section 16-1-40) to any offense enumerated in this subsection.
(B) A person who pled guilty or nolo contendere to at least one of the offenses enumerated in subsection (A), was subsequently convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for the offense, is currently incarcerated for the offense, and asserts he is innocent of the offense, may apply for forensic DNA testing of his DNA and any physical evidence or biological material related to his conviction or adjudication no later than seven years from the date of sentencing.
Section 17-28-40. (A) The application must be made on such form as prescribed by the Supreme Court.
(B) The application must be verified by the applicant and filed under the original indictment number or petition with the clerk of court of the general sessions court or family court in which the conviction or adjudication took place. Facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant and the authenticity of all documents and exhibits included in or attached to the application must be sworn to affirmatively as true and correct.
(C) The application must, under penalty of perjury:
(1) identify the proceedings in which the applicant was convicted or adjudicated;
(2) give the date of the entry of the judgment and sentence and identify the applicant's current place of incarceration;
(3) identify all previous or ongoing proceedings, together with the grounds therein asserted, taken by the applicant to secure relief from his conviction or adjudication;
(4) make a reasonable attempt to identify the physical evidence or biological material that should be tested and the specific type of DNA testing that is sought;
(5) explain why the identity of the applicant was or should have been a significant issue during the original court proceedings, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant may have pled guilty or nolo contendere or made or is alleged to have made an incriminating statement or admission as to identity;
(6) explain why the physical evidence or biological material sought to be tested was not previously subjected to DNA testing, or, if the physical evidence or biological material sought to be tested was previously subjected to DNA testing, provide the results of the testing and explain how the requested DNA test would provide a substantially more probative result;
(7) explain why, if the DNA testing produces exculpatory results, the testing will constitute new evidence that will probably change the result of the applicant's conviction or adjudication if a new trial is granted and is not merely cumulative or impeaching; and
(8) provide that the application is made to demonstrate innocence and not solely to delay the execution of a sentence or the administration of justice.
Section 17-28-50. (A) The clerk shall file the application upon its receipt and promptly bring it to the attention of the court and deliver for docketing a copy to the solicitor of the circuit in which the applicant was convicted or adjudicated. The Attorney General and the appropriate custodian of evidence shall be notified by the solicitor. The victim shall be notified pursuant to the provisions of Article 15, Chapter 3, Title 16.
(B) Within ninety days after the forwarding of the application, or upon any further time the court may fix, the solicitor of the circuit in which the applicant was convicted or adjudicated, or the Attorney General if the Attorney General prosecuted the case, shall respond to the application. Within ninety days after the docketing of the application, or within any further time the court may fix, the victim may respond as provided in Article 15, Chapter 3, Title 16. The court may proceed with a hearing if the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, or the victim does not respond to the application.
(C) At any time prior to entry of judgment the court may, when appropriate, issue orders for amendment of the application and for any documents related to the application including, but not limited to, pleadings, motions, and requests for extensions of time. In considering the application and related documents, the court shall take account of substance, regardless of defects of form. When the court is satisfied, on the basis of the application, the responses, or the motion of the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, that the applicant is not entitled to DNA testing and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, it may indicate to the applicant and the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, its intention to summarily dismiss the application and its reasons for so doing. The victim shall be notified of the proposed dismissal pursuant to the provisions of Article 15, Chapter 3, Title 16. The court shall make specific findings of fact and expressly state its conclusions of law. The applicant shall be given an opportunity to reply to the proposed dismissal. In light of the reply, or on default thereof, the court may order the application dismissed, grant leave to file an amended application, or direct that the proceedings otherwise continue.
(D) If the applicant has filed a previous application for DNA testing, the applicant may file a successive application, provided the applicant asserts a grounds for DNA testing which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application.
Section 17-28-60. If the applicant is unable to pay court costs and expenses of counsel, these costs and expenses shall be made available to the applicant in amounts and to the extent provided pursuant to Section 17-27-60. The applicant must request counsel at the time he files his application. The court must appoint counsel for an indigent applicant after the court has determined that the application is sufficient to proceed to a hearing but prior to the actual hearing. If counsel has been appointed for the applicant in an ongoing post-conviction relief proceeding, then the counsel appointed in the post-conviction relief proceeding shall also serve as counsel for purposes of this article. The performance of counsel pursuant to this article shall not form the basis for relief in any post-conviction relief proceeding.
Section 17-28-70. (A) The court shall order a custodian of evidence to preserve all physical evidence and biological material related to the applicant's conviction or adjudication pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Chapter 28, Title 17.
(B) The custodian of evidence shall prepare an inventory of the physical evidence and biological material and issue a copy of the inventory to the applicant, the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, and the court.
(C) For physical evidence or biological material that the custodian of evidence asserts has been lost or destroyed, the court shall order a custodian of evidence to locate and provide the applicant and the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, with a copy of any document, note, log, or report relating to the physical evidence or biological material.
(D) If no physical evidence or biological material is discovered, the court may order a custodian of evidence, in collaboration with law enforcement, to search physical evidence and biological material in the custodian of evidence's possession that would reasonably be expected to produce relevant physical evidence or biological material. The order shall provide that any physical evidence and biological material subject to this search must be adequately protected by the custodian of evidence, in collaboration with law enforcement, from interference by a third party, including, but not limited to, alteration, contamination, destruction, or tampering with the physical evidence and biological material and any chain of custody related to the physical evidence and biological material.
(E) A person who wilfully and maliciously destroys, alters, conceals, or tampers with physical evidence or biological material that is required to be preserved pursuant to this section with the intent to impair the integrity of the physical evidence or biological material, prevent the physical evidence or biological material from being subjected to DNA testing, or prevent the production or use of the physical evidence or biological material in an official proceeding, is subject to the provisions of Section 17-28-350.
Section 17-28-80. For any physical evidence or biological material previously subjected to DNA testing whether by the applicant or the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, the court shall order the production of all written reports and laboratory reports prepared in connection with the DNA testing, including the underlying data and laboratory notes.
Section 17-28-90. (A) The application must be heard in, and before a judge of, the general sessions court or family court in which the conviction or adjudication took place. A record of the proceedings must be made and preserved. All rules and statutes applicable in criminal proceedings are available to the applicant and the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable.
(B) The court shall order DNA testing of the applicant's DNA and the physical evidence or biological material upon a finding that the applicant has established each of the following factors by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) the physical evidence or biological material to be tested is available and is potentially in a condition that would permit the requested DNA testing;
(2) the physical evidence or biological material to be tested has been subject to a chain of custody sufficient to establish it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material aspect, or the testing itself may establish the integrity of the physical evidence or biological material;
(3) the physical evidence or biological material sought to be tested is material to the issue of the applicant's identity as the perpetrator of, or accomplice to, the offense notwithstanding the fact that the applicant may have pled guilty or nolo contendere or made or is alleged to have made an incriminating statement or admission as to identity;
(4) the DNA results of the physical evidence or biological material sought to be tested would be material to the issue of the applicant's identity as the perpetrator of, or accomplice to, the offense notwithstanding the fact that the applicant may have pled guilty or nolo contendere or made or is alleged to have made an incriminating statement or admission as to identity;
(5) if the requested DNA testing produces exculpatory results, the testing will constitute new evidence that will probably change the result of the applicant's conviction or adjudication if a new trial is granted and is not merely cumulative or impeaching;
(6) the physical evidence or biological material sought to be tested was not previously subjected to DNA testing, or, if the physical evidence or biological material sought to be tested was previously subjected to DNA testing, the requested DNA test would provide a substantially more probative result; and
(7) the application is made to demonstrate innocence and not solely to delay the execution of a sentence or the administration of justice.
(C) The court shall order that any sample taken of the applicant's DNA for purposes of DNA testing pursuant to this article or for submission to SLED pursuant to subsection (F) be taken by a correctional health nurse technician, physician, registered professional nurse, licensed practical nurse, laboratory technician, or other appropriately trained health care worker. The applicant's counsel, if any, and the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, must be allowed to observe the taking of any sample.
(D) The court shall order that the applicant's DNA sample and the physical evidence or biological material be tested by SLED, a local Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) laboratory, or, prior to any testing, any other laboratory approved by SLED, in an effort to ensure that the results may be entered into the State DNA Database and Combined DNA Index System. Any other type of DNA testing ordered by the court shall be conducted in consultation with SLED or a local CODIS laboratory.
(E) The court shall order that the applicant pay the costs of the DNA testing. If the applicant is indigent, the costs of the DNA testing shall be paid by the State.
(F) The court shall order that a sample of the applicant's DNA be submitted to SLED to compare with profiles in the State DNA Database and any federal or other law enforcement DNA database in compliance with National DNA Index System (NDIS) procedures. The sample must be submitted regardless of any previous samples submitted by the applicant. If the comparison matches a DNA profile for the offense for which the applicant was convicted or adjudicated, the DNA sample may be retained in the State DNA Database. If the comparison does not match a DNA profile for the offense for which the applicant was convicted or adjudicated, but results in a match with a DNA profile for any other offense, the DNA sample may be retained in the State DNA Database. SLED shall notify the appropriate law enforcement agency. If the comparison does not match a DNA profile for any offense, the DNA sample must be destroyed. Any previous samples must be maintained by SLED subject to the State DNA Database Act. SLED shall report to the court, the applicant, and the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, the results of all DNA database comparisons. The victim shall be notified of the results of all DNA database comparisons pursuant to Article 15, Chapter 3, Title 16.
(G) The applicant and the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, shall have the right to appeal a final order denying or granting DNA testing by a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court as provided by the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules.
Section 17-28-100. (A) The results of the DNA test must be fully disclosed to the court, the applicant, and the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable. The victim shall be notified of the results of the DNA test pursuant to Article 15, Chapter 3, Title 16. The court shall order the production of any written reports and laboratory reports prepared in connection with the DNA testing, including underlying data and notes.
(B) The results of the DNA test may be used by the applicant, solicitor, or Attorney General in any post-conviction proceeding or trial. If the results of the DNA test are exculpatory, the applicant may use the exculpatory results of the DNA test as grounds for filing a motion for new trial pursuant to the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the results of the DNA test are inconclusive, the court may allow for additional DNA testing or may dismiss the application. If the results of the DNA test are inculpatory, the court shall dismiss the application and shall, on motion of the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable:
(1) make a determination whether the applicant's assertion of actual innocence was intentionally false, and, as a result, hold the applicant in contempt of court;
(2) assess against the applicant the cost of any DNA testing not already paid by the applicant;
(3) forward the findings to the South Carolina Department of Corrections, who may use such finding to deny good conduct credit; and
(4) forward the findings to the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, who may use the findings to deny parole.
(C) Except as otherwise provided in this article, DNA samples, results, and information taken from the applicant are exempt from any law requiring disclosure of information to the public.
Section 17-28-110. (A) Nothing in this article prohibits a person and a solicitor or the Attorney General, as applicable, from consenting to and conducting post-conviction DNA testing by agreement of the parties. The person may use the exculpatory results of the DNA test as the grounds for filing a motion for new trial pursuant to the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(B) Nothing in this article prohibits a person from filing an application for post-conviction relief pursuant to Chapter 27, Title 17.
(C) Nothing in this article shall be construed to give rise to a claim for damages against the State of South Carolina, a political subdivision of the State, or an employee of the State or a political subdivision of the State. Failure of a custodian of evidence to preserve physical evidence or biological material pursuant to this article does not entitle the applicant to any relief from conviction or adjudication but does not prohibit a person from presenting such information at a subsequent hearing or trial.
Section 17-28-120. No more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars may be expended from the general fund in any fiscal year to administer the provisions of this article."
SECTION 11. Chapter 28 of Title 17 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
Section 17-28-300. This article shall be cited as the 'Preservation of Evidence Act'.
Section 17-28-310. For purposes of this article:
(1) 'Biological material' means any blood, tissue, hair, saliva, bone, or semen from which DNA marker groupings may be obtained. This includes material catalogued separately on slides, swabs, or test tubes or present on other evidence including, but not limited to, clothing, ligatures, bedding, other household material, drinking cups, or cigarettes.
(2) 'Custodian of evidence' means an agency or political subdivision of the State including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency, a solicitor's office, the Attorney General's Office, a county clerk of court, or a state grand jury that possesses and is responsible for the control of evidence during a criminal investigation or proceeding, or a person ordered by a court to take custody of evidence during a criminal investigation or proceeding.
(3) 'DNA' means deoxyribonucleic acid.
(4) 'Incarceration' means serving a term of confinement in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections or the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and does not include a person on probation, parole, or under a community supervision program.
(5) 'Law enforcement agency' means a lawfully established federal, state, or local public agency that is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of penal, traffic, regulatory, game, immigration, postal, customs, or controlled substances laws.
(6) 'Physical evidence' means an object, thing, or substance that is or is about to be produced or used or has been produced or used in a criminal proceeding related to an offense enumerated in Section 17-28-320, and that is in the possession of a custodian of evidence.
Section 17-28-320. (A) A custodian of evidence must preserve all physical evidence and biological material related to the conviction or adjudication of a person for at least one of the following offenses:
(1) murder (Section 16-3-10);
(2) killing by poison (Section 16-3-30);
(3) killing by stabbing or thrusting (Section 16-3-40);
(4) voluntary manslaughter (Section 16-3-50);
(5) homicide by child abuse (Section 16-3-85(A)(1));
(6) aiding and abetting a homicide by child abuse (Section 16-3-85(A)(2));
(7) lynching in the first degree (Section 16-3-210);
(8) killing in a duel (Section 16-3-430);
(9) spousal sexual battery (Section 16-3-615);
(10) criminal sexual conduct in the first degree (Section 16-3-652);
(11) criminal sexual conduct in the second degree (Section 16-3-653);
(12) criminal sexual conduct in the third degree (Section 16-3-654);
(13) criminal sexual conduct with a minor (Section 16-3-655);
(14) arson in the first degree resulting in death (Section 16-11-110(A));
(15) burglary in the first degree for which the person is sentenced to ten years or more (Section 16-11-311(B));
(16) armed robbery for which the person is sentenced to ten years or more (Section 16-11-330(A));
(17) damaging or destroying a building, vehicle, or property by means of an explosive incendiary resulting in death (Section 16-11-540);
(18) abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult resulting in death (Section 43-35-85(F));
(19) sexual misconduct with an inmate, patient, or offender (Section 44-23-1150);
(20) unlawful removing or damaging of an airport facility or equipment resulting in death (Section 55-1-30(3));
(21) interference with traffic-control devices or railroad signs or signals resulting in death (Section 56-5-1030(B)(3));
(22) driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs resulting in death (Section 56-5-2945);
(23) obstruction of railroad resulting in death (Section 58-17-4090); or
(24) accessory before the fact (Section 16-1-40) to any offense enumerated in this subsection.
(B) The physical evidence and biological material must be preserved:
(1) subject to a chain of custody as required by South Carolina law;
(2) with sufficient documentation to locate the physical evidence and biological material; and
(3) under conditions reasonably designed to preserve the forensic value of the physical evidence and biological material.
(C) The physical evidence and biological material must be preserved until the person is released from incarceration, dies while incarcerated, or is executed for the offense enumerated in subsection (A). However, if the person is convicted or adjudicated on a guilty or nolo contendere plea for the offense enumerated in subsection (A), the physical evidence and biological material must be preserved for seven years from the date of sentencing, or until the person is released from incarceration, dies while incarcerated, or is executed for the offense enumerated in subsection (A), whichever comes first.
Section 17-28-330. (A) After a person is convicted or adjudicated for at least one of the offenses enumerated in Section 17-28-320, a custodian of evidence shall register with the South Carolina Department of Corrections or the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice, as applicable, as a custodian of evidence for physical evidence or biological material related to the person's conviction or adjudication.
(B) The South Carolina Department of Corrections or the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice, as applicable, shall notify a custodian of evidence registered pursuant to subsection (A) if the person is released from incarceration, dies while incarcerated, or is executed for the offense enumerated in Section 17-28-320.
Section 17-28-340. (A) After a person is convicted or adjudicated for at least one of the offenses enumerated in Section 17-28-320, a custodian of evidence may petition the general sessions court or family court in which the person was convicted or adjudicated for an order allowing for disposition of the physical evidence or biological material prior to the period of time described in Section 17-28-320, if:
(1) the physical evidence or biological material must be returned to its rightful owner, is of such size, bulk, or physical character as to make retention impracticable, or is otherwise required to be disposed of by law; or
(2) DNA evidence was previously introduced at trial, was found to be inculpatory, and all appeals and post-conviction procedures have been exhausted.
(B) The petition must:
(1) be made on such form as prescribed by the Supreme Court;
(2) identify the proceedings in which the person was convicted or adjudicated;
(3) give the date of the entry of the judgment and sentence;
(4) specifically set forth the physical evidence or biological material to be disposed of; and
(5) specifically set forth the reason for the disposition.
(C) The clerk of court shall file the petition upon its receipt and promptly bring it to the attention of the court and deliver a copy to the convicted or adjudicated person and the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable. The victim shall be notified of the petition pursuant to Article 15, Chapter 3, Title 16.
(D) The convicted or adjudicated person and the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, shall have one hundred and eighty days to respond to the petition. The victim may respond within one hundred and eighty days in accordance with the provisions of Article 15, Chapter 3, Title 16.
(E) After a hearing, the court may order that the custodian of evidence may dispose of the physical evidence or biological material if the court determines by preponderance of evidence that:
(1) the physical evidence or biological material must be returned to its rightful owner, is of such size, bulk, or physical character as to make retention impracticable, or is otherwise required to be disposed of by law, or DNA evidence was previously introduced at trial, was found to be inculpatory, and all appeals and post-conviction procedures have been exhausted;
(2) the convicted or adjudicated person, the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, and the victim have been notified of the petition for an order to dispose of the physical evidence or biological material;
(3) the convicted or adjudicated person did not file an affidavit declaring, under penalty of perjury, the person's intent to file an application for post-conviction DNA testing of the physical evidence or biological material pursuant to Article 1, Chapter 28, Title 17 within ninety days followed by the actual filing of the application;
(4) the solicitor or the Attorney General, as applicable, and the victim have not filed a response requesting that the physical evidence or biological material not be disposed of; and
(5) no other provision of federal or state law, regulation, or court rule requires preservation of the physical evidence or biological material.
(F) If the court issues an order for the disposition of the physical evidence or biological material, the court may require a custodian of evidence to take reasonable measures to remove and preserve portions of the physical evidence or biological material in a quantity sufficient to:
(1) permit future DNA testing or other scientific analysis; or
(2) for other reasons, upon request and good cause shown, by the solicitor or Attorney General, as applicable, or the victim.
Section 17-28-350. A person who wilfully and maliciously destroys, alters, conceals, or tampers with physical evidence or biological material that is required to be preserved pursuant to this article with the intent to impair the integrity of the physical evidence or biological material, prevent the physical evidence or biological material from being subjected to DNA testing, or prevent the production or use of the physical evidence or biological material in an official proceeding, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars for a first offense, and not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, for each subsequent violation.
Section 17-28-360. Nothing in this article shall be construed to give rise to a claim for damages against the State of South Carolina, a political subdivision of the State, an employee of the State, or a political subdivision of the State. Failure of a custodian of evidence to preserve physical evidence or biological material pursuant to this article does not entitle a person to any relief from conviction or adjudication but does not prohibit a person from presenting such information at a subsequent hearing or trial."
SECTION 12. The repeal or amendment by the provisions of this section or any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.
SECTION 13. 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 act, the General Assembly hereby declaring that it would have passed this act, and each and every section, subsection, item, subitem, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, items, subitems, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words hereof may be declared to be unconstitutional, invalid, or otherwise ineffective.
SECTION 14. The provisions of Sections 1 through 9 of this act take effect on January 1, 2009. However, the implementation of the procedures provided for in this act is contingent upon the State Law Enforcement Division's receipt of funds necessary to implement these provisions. Until the provisions of this act are fully funded and executed, implementation of the provisions of this act shall not prohibit the collection and testing of DNA samples by the methods allowed prior to the implementation of this act from persons convicted, adjudicated delinquent, or on probation or parole for those crimes listed in Section 23-3-620. Upon this act taking effect, a South Carolina law enforcement agency, which has in its possession any DNA samples that have been included in the DNA Database, immediately must destroy and dispose of the DNA samples in accordance with regulations promulgated by SLED pursuant to Section 23-3-640. The provisions of Section 17-28-350 as contained in Section 11 becomes effective upon the signature of the Governor. The remaining provisions of this act take effect on January 1, 2009. The enactment of these provisions prior to the effective date indicates the intent of the General Assembly that statewide laws or practices shall exist to ensure additional procedures for post-conviction DNA testing, and proper preservation of biological evidence connected to murder, rape, and non-negligent homicide in order that application for available federal funds shall be made by the appropriate agencies and considered by the appropriate federal agencies prior to the effective date. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. G. M. SMITH explained the amendment.
Rep. KELLY moved to adjourn debate on the Bill.
Rep. CRAWFORD moved to table the motion.
Rep. SCOTT demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Ballentine Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cooper Cotty Crawford Davenport Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hayes Herbkersman Huggins Hutson Jennings Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McLeod Merrill Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Owens Perry Phillips Pinson Rice Sandifer Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Whipper White Whitmire Witherspoon Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cobb-Hunter Daning Dantzler Delleney Govan Hamilton Hart Harvin Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Kelly Kennedy Littlejohn Mahaffey Neilson Parks E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Scott Sellers G. R. Smith Spires Weeks Williams
So, the motion to adjourn debate was tabled.
Rep. HART moved to continue the Bill.
Rep. CRAWFORD demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Daning Govan Hart Harvin Hodges Hosey Jefferson Kelly Kennedy Littlejohn Rutherford Scott Sellers J. E. Smith Weeks
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cooper Cotty Crawford Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Hiott Howard Huggins Jennings Kirsh Knight Leach Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Vick Viers Walker Whipper White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
So, the House refused to continue the Bill.
Rep. G. M. SMITH spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. F. N. SMITH spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. HUTSON spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. KELLY spoke against the amendment.
Rep. JENNINGS moved that the House do now adjourn.
Rep. CRAWFORD demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Battle Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cotty Dantzler Funderburk Govan Hamilton Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Rutherford Scott D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Spires Talley Toole Vick Viers Weeks Whipper Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bannister Barfield Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Cooper Crawford Daning Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Herbkersman Huggins Hutson Knight Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Merrill Mulvaney Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton G. M. Smith J. R. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Taylor Thompson Umphlett Walker White Whitmire Witherspoon
So, the motion to adjourn was agreed to.
Further proceedings were interrupted by adjournment, the pending question being consideration of Amendment No. 1.
Rep. J. E. SMITH moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 18 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
Rep. UMPHLETT moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 33 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
Rep. LUCAS moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 34 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
Rep. WHITE moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 44 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
Rep. WHITE moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 45 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
Rep. WHITE moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 12 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
Rep. HAGOOD moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 56 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
Rep. EDGE moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 60 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
Rep. WHIPPER moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 54 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
Rep. MOSS moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 19 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:
H. 5198 (Word version) --Rep. Davenport: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ERECT SIGNS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 9 AND OLD FURNACE ROAD AND AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 9 AND INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 85 THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "BOILING SPRINGS HOME OF THE BOILING SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL BULLDOGS 2008 CLASS AAAA STATE BASEBALL CHAMPIONS".
H. 5217 (Word version) --Reps. McLeod and Duncan: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 26 AND SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 121 INTERCHANGE IN NEWBERRY COUNTY AS THE "U. S. MARSHAL ISRAEL BROOKS, JR. MEMORIAL INTERCHANGE" IN RECOGNITION OF HIS MANY ACHIEVEMENTS ATTAINED DURING HIS ILLUSTRIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT CAREER, AND TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ERECT APPROPRIATE SIGNS OR MARKERS REFLECTING THIS DESIGNATION.
H. 5239 (Word version) --Reps. Neilson, Williams and Lucas: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE THE DARLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL "LADY FALCONS" SOFTBALL TEAM OF DARLINGTON COUNTY ON ITS OUTSTANDING SEASON AND IMPRESSIVE WIN OF THE 2008 CLASS AAA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.
H. 5242 (Word version) --Rep. Brantley: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR DENNIS THOMPSON FOR HIS SUCCESSFUL LEADERSHIP AS SUPERINTENDENT OF HAMPTON SCHOOL DISTRICT TWO, AND TO WISH HIM WELL, UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT, AFTER THIRTY-SIX YEARS AS AN EDUCATOR IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
H. 5245 (Word version) --Reps. Shoopman, J. E. Smith, Harrell, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Chalk, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Daning, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Erickson, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrison, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Hutson, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss, Mulvaney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sellers, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO HONOR AND REMEMBER THE SUPREME SACRIFICE MADE BY SPECIALIST DAVID LEE LEIMBACH OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD, WHILE HE WAS SERVING AN EXTENDED TOUR OF MILITARY DUTY IN AFGHANISTAN, AND TO EXPRESS TO HIS WIDOW, FAMILY, AND FRIENDS THE DEEPEST APPRECIATION OF A GRATEFUL STATE AND NATION FOR HIS LIFE, SACRIFICE, AND SERVICE.
At 7:35 p.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. HERBKERSMAN, adjourned in memory of Joshua George of Bluffton, to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Monday, June 22, 2009 at 12:03 P.M.