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 Jeremiah 20:12: "O Lord of hosts, you test the righteous, you see the heart and mind."
Let us pray. Creator God, You made each of us unique and You are calling each of us to use our special gifts in some way. Lead us to know what this is and to use it in ways that show our love, loyalty, and faithfulness to Your whole creation, especially those we serve. Continue Your grace and blessing on our Nation, President, State, Governor, Speaker, this Honorable Assembly, and all who serve in these Halls of Government. Bless and protect our defenders of freedom at home and abroad as they protect us. Hear our prayer, O Lord. Amen.

Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.

After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, June 5, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

Rep. HARRISON moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Matthew Bruccoli of Columbia, which was agreed to.

Pursuant to an invitation, the Honorable Speaker and House of Representatives appeared in the Senate Chamber on June 10, 2008, at 3:30 P.M., and the following Acts and Joint Resolutions were ratified:

(R400, S. 96 (Word version)) -- Senators Sheheen and Fair: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 61-6-4155 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO USE, OFFER FOR USE, PURCHASE, OFFER TO PURCHASE, SELL, OFFER TO SELL, OR

(R401, S. 181 (Word version)) -- Senators Fair, Richardson and Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 24-13-210 AND 24-13-230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO GOOD BEHAVIOR, WORK, AND ACADEMIC CREDITS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO DEVELOP POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDELINES TO ALLOW CERTAIN PRISONERS TO RECEIVE A REDUCTION IN THEIR SENTENCES AND TO REVISE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THAT MAY BE REDUCED FROM A SENTENCE; TO AMEND SECTION 24-27-200, RELATING TO THE FORFEITURE OF WORK, EDUCATION, OR GOOD CONDUCT CREDITS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A REDUCTION IN THESE CREDITS MAY BE IMPLEMENTED PURSUANT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 30-4-40, RELATING TO MATTERS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, DRAWINGS, OR SCHEMATICS OR LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICIES WHOSE DISCLOSURE WOULD REASONABLY BE USED TO FACILITATE AN ESCAPE FROM LAWFUL CUSTODY MAY BE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE; TO AMEND SECTION 24-3-20, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF PLACES OF CONFINEMENT FOR INMATES, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE THE TERM "REGIONAL COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL JAIL" FOR THE TERM "COUNTY JAIL", AND TO INCLUDE FACILITY MANAGERS OF THE COUNTY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATORS, OR THEIR EQUIVALENT AS PERSONS WHO THE STATE MUST CONSENT

(R402, S. 530 (Word version)) -- Senator Leatherman: AN ACT TO ENACT THE BUDGET PROVISO CODIFICATION ACT OF 2008, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE CODIFICATION IN THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, OF CERTAIN PROVISOS CONTAINED IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, AND CODIFY OTHER RELATED PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, INCLUDING PROVISIONS BY ADDING SECTION 8-11-193 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE HIGHER EDUCATION FURLOUGH PROGRAMS IN YEARS OF BUDGET CUTS OR ACROSS THE BOARD REDUCTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 59-104-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE COMMISSION, BY REGULATION, SHALL DEFINE ALTERNATIVE QUALIFICATIONS FOR AN EXCEPTIONALLY GIFTED STUDENT WHO IS A RESIDENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND IS ACCEPTED INTO AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING WITHOUT HAVING ATTENDED OR GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL; TO AMEND SECTION 59-143-10, RELATING TO THE CHILDREN'S EDUCATION ENDOWMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY UNSPENT BALANCE IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIP GRANTS ALLOCATION OF THE CHILDREN'S EDUCATION ENDOWMENT FUND MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR NEED-BASED GRANTS AND PALMETTO FELLOWS SCHOLARSHIPS; BY ADDING SECTION 59-111-25 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF A MID-YEAR BUDGET REDUCTION IS IMPOSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LIFE SCHOLARSHIP, NEED-BASED GRANTS, AND THE PALMETTO FELLOWS SCHOLARSHIP ARE EXEMPT; TO AMEND SECTION 59-112-70, RELATING TO THE WAIVER OR ABATEMENT OF OUT-OF-STATE TUITION AND FEES, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE WAIVER OF NONRESIDENT TUITION AND FEES FOR CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 59-112-20, RELATING TO HIGHER EDUCATION TUITION AND FEES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR IN-STATE RATES FOR CERTAIN GEORGIA RESIDENTS UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS; BY ADDING SECTION 59-112-120 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT TECHNICAL COLLEGES MAY OFFER IN-STATE RATES TO RESIDENTS OF BORDERING

(R403, S. 577 (Word version)) -- Senator Sheheen: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 22-3-560, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE IN MAGISTRATES COURTS IN ASSAULT AND BATTERY AND OTHER BREACH OF THE PEACE OFFENSES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MAGISTRATES COURTS' JURISDICTION FOR ALL ASSAULT AND BATTERY OFFENSES AGAINST SPORTS OFFICIALS AND COACHES TO PROVIDE FOR A FINE NOT EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS OR IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS, OR BOTH; BY ADDING SECTION 17-15-90 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF WILFUL FAILURE TO APPEAR AND PROVIDE PENALTIES BASED ON THE UNDERLYING CHARGE; TO AMEND SECTION 38-53-50, RELATING TO SURETY RELIEVED ON BOND AND SURRENDER OF A DEFENDANT, SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES WHEN A BENCH WARRANT MAY BE ISSUED FOR ARREST OF A DEFENDANT AND TO PROVIDE THAT NONPAYMENT OF FEES ALONE DOES NOT WARRANT IMMEDIATE INCARCERATION OF THE DEFENDANT; TO AMEND SECTION 38-53-70, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BENCH WARRANT AND THE REMISSION OF JUDGMENT, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE THE BOND IS FORFEITED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR FROM THIRTY TO NINETY DAYS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE BENCH WARRANT AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE BENCH WARRANT MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR PICKUP BY THE SURETY WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF ISSUANCE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 22-5-110, RELATING TO MAGISTRATES' POWERS TO CAUSE THE ARREST OF CERTAIN OFFENDERS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A COURTESY SUMMONS TO PERSONS CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE REQUIRING A WARRANT SIGNED BY NONLAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.

(R404, S. 605 (Word version)) -- Senator Grooms: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1240, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DISPLAY OF A MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF A MOTORCYCLE IS EQUIPPED WITH VERTICALLY MOUNTED LICENSE PLATE BRACKETS, ITS LICENSE PLATE MUST BE MOUNTED VERTICALLY WITH ITS TOP FASTENED ALONG

(R405, S. 669 (Word version)) -- Senator Alexander: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 43-7-465 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN INSURER THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF A CLAIM FOR A HEALTH CARE ITEM OR SERVICE AS A CONDITION OF DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE SHALL PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ON INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVE

(R406, S. 987 (Word version)) -- Senator Gregory: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-80, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF BOATING LAWS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS ENFORCEMENT AND THE AUTHORITY OF ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ENFORCE THESE PROVISIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-130, 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; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-175, RELATING TO WATERCRAFT REQUIRED TO HEAVE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAGISTRATES COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION OVER VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION; BY ADDING SECTION

(R407, S. 1131 (Word version)) -- Senator Thomas: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-43-20, 38-43-70, BOTH AS AMENDED, 38-43-75, 38-43-80, AS AMENDED, 38-43-100, 38-43-101, BOTH AS AMENDED, 38-43-102, 38-43-106, 38-43-107, 38-43-110, 38-43-130, ALL AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, ALL RELATING TO INSURANCE PRODUCERS AND AGENCIES, SO AS TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF A LICENSED PRODUCER WHO PERFORMS ONLY CLERICAL DUTIES MAY NOT SIGN AN APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE; TO PROVIDE THAT UNLESS DENIED LICENSURE A NONRESIDENT PERSON SHALL RECEIVE A NONRESIDENT PRODUCER'S LICENSE WITH THE SAME LINES OF AUTHORITY HELD IN THE PRODUCER'S HOME STATE; TO DELETE LIMITED LINE CREDIT INSURANCE AS A LINE OF INSURANCE WHICH AN INSURANCE PRODUCER MAY RECEIVE QUALIFICATION FOR A LICENSE; TO PROVIDE THAT LIMITED LINE INSURANCE INCLUDES CREDIT INSURANCE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEFINITION OF "BIENNIAL APPOINTMENT FEE", PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE IF REJECTED BY A BANK, DELETE

(R408, S. 1376 (Word version)) -- Senators Hayes, Peeler, Gregory and Short: AN ACT 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.

(R409, H. 3033 (Word version)) -- Reps. Clemmons, Mahaffey and Cotty: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

(R410, H. 3094 (Word version)) -- Reps. Brady, Haskins, Cotty, Mahaffey, Funderburk, Viers, Erickson, Hutson, Clemmons, Mulvaney, Harvin and Bedingfield: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 23-3-535 SO AS TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR CERTAIN TERMS, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A SEX OFFENDER WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES TO RESIDE IN CERTAIN AREAS, TO PROVIDE IF A LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DETERMINES THAT A SEX OFFENDER HAS VIOLATED THIS PROVISION, THE AGENCY MUST PROVIDE THE SEX OFFENDER WITH A LIST OF AREAS IN WHICH HE IS NOT PERMITTED TO RESIDE AND THAT HE MUST VACATE HIS RESIDENCE, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS PROVISION, TO PROVIDE THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOT ENACT AN ORDINANCE WHOSE PENALTIES EXCEED OR ARE LESS LENIENT THAN THE PENALTIES CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION, TO REQUIRE EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT TO PROVIDE CERTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING SEX OFFENDERS OR THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY TO THE PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OF ITS STUDENTS OR ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S WEB SITE, TO PROVIDE THAT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES MUST DETERMINE WHETHER EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIES WITH THIS PROVISION, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION; AND AMEND SECTION 23-3-470, RELATING TO A SEX OFFENDER'S FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER, SO AS TO REVISE THE PENALTY FOR A FIRST OFFENSE VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISION.

(R411, H. 3212 (Word version)) -- Reps. Delleney, M.A. Pitts, Haley, Crawford, Chellis, G.R. Smith, Owens, Rice, Weeks, Viers, Simrill, Bedingfield, Vick, Duncan, Mulvaney, Stavrinakis, Clemmons and Young: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 23-31-215, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CONCEALABLE WEAPONS PERMITS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT VALID OUT-OF-STATE PERMITS TO CARRY CONCEALABLE WEAPONS BY A RESIDENT OF A RECIPROCAL STATE MUST BE HONORED IF THE RECIPROCAL STATE REQUIRES A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK AND A FIREARM TRAINING AND SAFETY COURSE AND TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT SLED DETERMINE WHICH STATES MEET THIS STANDARD.

(R412, H. 3309 (Word version)) -- Reps. Owens, Ballentine, Duncan, Leach, Kirsh, Simrill, Gullick, Limehouse, McLeod, Witherspoon, Mahaffey, Alexander, Dantzler, Edge, Hamilton, Hayes, Jennings, Kelly, E.H. Pitts, Rice, R. Brown, Huggins, Anthony, Shoopman, Littlejohn, Harvin, Agnew, Whitmire, Moss, Pinson, Parks, Merrill, M.A. Pitts, Scarborough, Miller, Phillips, Bedingfield and Taylor: AN ACT TO AMEND CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 58-27-415 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE PAYMENT, IMPOSITION, OR COLLECTION OF A FRANCHISE FEE WITH RESPECT TO ELECTRICAL POWER PROVIDED TO THE STATE BY A UTILITY UNDER THE "STATELINE ACCOUNTS" AND TO REQUIRE A UTILITY TO EXCLUDE SALES REVENUE ACCRUED FROM "STATELINE ACCOUNTS" WHEN CALCULATING A FRANCHISE FEE OWED TO A MUNICIPALITY.

(R413, H. 3575 (Word version)) -- Reps. Young, Harrell, Anthony, Clyburn, Lucas, J.M. Neal, Owens, E.H. Pitts, Taylor, White, Chellis, Gullick, R. Brown, Stavrinakis, Hagood and Scarborough: 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

(R414, H. 3623 (Word version)) -- Rep. Thompson: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 6-11-340, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE; TO AMEND SECTIONS 14-1-206, 14-1-207, AND 14-1-208, ALL AS AMENDED, RELATING TO MONETARY ASSESSMENTS LEVIED AGAINST FINES IMPOSED IN GENERAL SESSIONS, MAGISTRATES, AND MUNICIPAL COURTS, SO AS TO DELETE THE TERM "DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY" AND REPLACE IT WITH THE TERM "SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY"; TO AMEND SECTION 23-11-110, RELATING TO CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS THAT A SHERIFF MUST POSSESS, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE; TO AMEND SECTION 23-23-70, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CERTIFICATES, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO SECTION 23-6-440 AND REPLACE IT WITH REFERENCES TO SECTION 23-23-60; TO AMEND SECTION 23-28-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE POLICE OFFICERS, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE; TO AMEND SECTION 23-47-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO 911 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE; TO AMEND SECTION 24-5-320, RELATING TO THE JAIL PRE-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAM, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO THE "DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY" AND REPLACE THEM WITH REFERENCES TO THE "SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY", AND TO MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES; TO AMEND SECTION 24-5-360, RELATING TO TRAINING OFFERED TO RESERVES WHO WISH TO BECOME FULL-TIME JAILERS OR DETENTION OFFICERS, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO THE "DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY" AND REPLACE THEM WITH REFERENCES TO THE "SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY", AND TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE; TO AMEND SECTION 40-18-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, SO AS TO DELETE A REFERENCE TO THE "LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING COUNCIL" AND TO REPLACE IT WITH A REFERENCE TO THE "SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY"; TO AMEND SECTION 23-23-10, RELATING TO THE

(R415, H. 3798 (Word version)) -- Rep. G.R. Smith: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGE CEREMONIES, SO AS TO ALSO AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF OR SPIRITUAL LEADER OF A NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN ENTITY RECOGNIZED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION FOR MINORITY AFFAIRS TO PERFORM MARRIAGE CEREMONIES.

(R416, H. 3812 (Word version)) -- Reps. G.M. Smith, Weeks and Ceips: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 6-1-320, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LIMIT ON PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE INCREASES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A MILLAGE RATE LIMITATION TO PURCHASE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY NEAR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEAR THOSE MILITARY INSTALLATIONS, REQUIRE AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND ESTABLISH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN THE ORDINANCE, REQUIRE A MILLAGE INCREASE TO REASONABLY RELATE TO THE PURCHASE PRICE AND BE RESCINDED IN FIVE YEARS AFTER A CERTAIN TIME, PROHIBIT REINSTATEMENT OF THE MILLAGE RATE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY AND PROVIDE FOR PAYING FOR THE REFERENDUM; TO PROVIDE FOR A LIMIT ON PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE RATE LIMITATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, DEFINE "CAPITAL EQUIPMENT", AND PROVIDE FOR

(R417, H. 3912 (Word version)) -- Reps. White and Bales: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-30, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT TO BE LICENSED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE AND TO SPECIFY WHAT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS PRACTICING MEDICINE, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT A PHYSICIAN MAY DELEGATE CERTAIN TASKS TO AN UNLICENSED PERSON IF THE PHYSICIAN IS IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE AND TO PROVIDE THAT A PHYSICIAN IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM PRACTICING IN CONSULTATION WITH A SOUTH CAROLINA PHYSICIAN CONCERNING AN OPINION FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA PHYSICIAN'S CONSIDERATION IN MANAGING THE CASE AND TREATMENT OF A PATIENT IN THIS STATE; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-32, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN PROVIDING DOCUMENTATION OF RESIDENCY TRAINING FOR LICENSURE, A PHYSICIAN WHO GRADUATED FROM A SCHOOL OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES OR CANADA IS ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY LICENSED FOR THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS, RATHER THAN THE PRECEDING TEN YEARS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION MUST BE IN A BOARD CERTIFIED APPLICANT'S AREA OF SPECIALTY IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN LICENSURE WITHOUT HAVING TO PASS AN EXAMINATION; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF TERMS IN THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF PHYSICIANS, INCLUDING THE DEFINITION OF THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT RENDERING A DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL NECESSITY OR A DECISION AFFECTING THE DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT OF A PATIENT IS NOT, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE WHEN SUCH DETERMINATION OR DECISION IS A COVERAGE DECISION DENYING HEALTH CARE

(R418, H. 4320 (Word version)) -- Reps. Whipper, Clyburn, R. Brown and Hosey: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 59-63-31, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS FOR ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SO AS TO ADD THE RESIDENCE OF A CHILD IN A PARTICULAR SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A RESULT OF A PARENT'S OR LEGAL GUARDIAN'S MILITARY DEPLOYMENT; BY ADDING SECTION 59-63-35 SO AS TO ALLOW NONRESIDENT MILITARY PERSONNEL TO ENROLL IN A PROGRAM TO AWARD A SOUTH CAROLINA HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA AND TO PROVIDE THAT NEITHER THE STATE NOR THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL BEAR THE COST OF ENROLLMENT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A NONRESIDENT MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO HAS MAINTAINED CERTAIN SIGNIFICANT CONTACTS WITH THE STATE IS CONSIDERED A RESIDENT FOR PURPOSES OF TITLE 59.

(R419, H. 4344 (Word version)) -- Reps. M.A. Pitts and Witherspoon: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 29 TO TITLE 37 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE PALMETTOPRIDE NONPROFIT CORPORATION, TO PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP AND DUTIES, AND TO REQUIRE THAT FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PROGRAM PASS THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION AND TOURISM AND BE USED FOR LITTER CONTROL AND OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES.

(R420, H. 4511 (Word version)) -- Rep. Walker: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-1-187 SO AS TO ENACT "TYLER'S LAW", TO PROVIDE A CIVIL PENALTY FOR A PARENT OR GUARDIAN WHO KNOWINGLY AND WILFULLY PERMITS HIS

(R421, H. 4554 (Word version)) -- Reps. Cobb-Hunter and Bedingfield: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 6-1-315, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LIMITATION ON THE IMPOSITION OR INCREASE OF A BUSINESS LICENSE TAX, SO AS TO LIMIT THE IMPOSITION OF A LICENSE, OCCUPATION, OR PROFESSIONAL TAX OR FEE UPON REAL ESTATE LICENSEES, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAX OR FEE SHALL PERMIT THE BROKER-IN-CHARGE AND THE BROKER'S AFFILIATED ASSOCIATE BROKERS, SALESPERSONS, AND PROPERTY MANAGERS TO ENGAGE IN ALL OF THE BROKERAGE ACTIVITY DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 57 OF TITLE 40 WITHOUT FURTHER LICENSING OR TAXING OTHER THAN STATE LICENSES, TO PROHIBIT THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE, OCCUPATION, OR PROFESSIONAL TAX OR FEE ON CERTAIN REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS FOR GROSS RECEIPTS UPON WHICH A TAX OR FEE HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID, TO PROVIDE THAT BROKERED TRANSACTIONS OR REAL PROPERTY IN COUNTIES OR MUNICIPALITIES OTHER THAN THOSE IN WHICH THE BROKER-IN-CHARGE MAINTAINS A PRINCIPAL OR BRANCH OFFICE CREATES A NEXUS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A LICENSE, OCCUPATION, OR PROFESSIONAL TAX OR FEE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM TRANSACTIONS OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THAT COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY, TO PROHIBIT THE GOVERNING BODY OF A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY FROM IMPOSING A LICENSE, OCCUPATION, OR PROFESSIONAL TAX OR FEE ON THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF AN AUCTIONEER LICENSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 6, TITLE 40 FOR THE FIRST THREE AUCTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE AUCTIONEER IN THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY, UNLESS THE AUCTIONEER MAINTAINS A

(R422, H. 4745 (Word version)) -- Reps. Young, Mulvaney, Umphlett, Ballentine, Huggins, E.H. Pitts, Bedingfield, Haley, Lowe, Clemmons, Viers, Scarborough, Edge, Harrell, Cotty, Mitchell, Chalk, Hagood, Talley, Gullick, Miller, Harvin, Bingham, Witherspoon, Haskins, Thompson, Merrill, Sandifer, Brady, Weeks, Scott, Duncan, Cato, Cooper, Dantzler, G.M. Smith, Whipper, R. Brown, Mahaffey, Toole, Herbkersman, Simrill, Littlejohn, Loftis and Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 35 TO TITLE 6 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ACT", TO PROVIDE THAT A COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITY MAY CREATE AN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COMPRISED OF

(R423, H. 4747 (Word version)) -- Rep. Harrison: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING TITLE 63 ENTITLED "SOUTH CAROLINA CHILDREN'S CODE" SO AS TO TRANSFER PROVISIONS FROM CHAPTER 7, TITLE 20 TO TITLE 63, TO INCLUDE THE STATE POLICY ON CHILDREN, FAMILY COURT AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES, LEGAL STATUS OF CHILDREN, CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, ADOPTIONS, CHILDREN'S SERVICE AGENCIES, CHILDCARE FACILITIES, CUSTODY AND VISITATION, PATERNITY AND CHILD SUPPORT, AND JUVENILE JUSTICE; TO ADD ARTICLE 5 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 20, RELATING TO DIVORCE, SO AS TO TRANSFER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 6, CHAPTER 7, TITLE 20, RELATING TO EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF PROPERTY, TO THIS ARTICLE; TO ADD ARTICLE 4 TO CHAPTER 5, TITLE 43, RELATING TO PUBLIC AID TO CHILDREN, SO AS TO TRANSFER THE PROVISIONS OF SUBARTICLE 7, ARTICLE 13, CHAPTER 7, TITLE 20, RELATING TO PUBLIC AID, TO THIS ARTICLE; TO ADD SECTION 44-53-378 SO AS TO TRANSFER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 20-7-105, WHICH CREATES A CRIMINAL OFFENSE FOR EXPOSING A CHILD TO METHAMPHETAMINES, TO THIS SECTION; AND TO REPEAL CHAPTER 7, TITLE 20, RELATING TO THE CHILDREN'S CODE; TO REPEAL SECTION 43-5-585, RELATING TO REPORTING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES TO CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES, WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO ARTICLE 21, CHAPTER 17, TITLE 63; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 43-5-595, 43-5-596, AND 43-5-597, RELATING TO CHILD SUPPORT

(R424, H. 4754 (Word version)) -- Reps. G.R. Smith and Hamilton: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-11-2027 SO AS TO ALLOW THE GOVERNING BODY OF A SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT CREATED BY ACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THAT PROVIDES RECREATIONAL SERVICES AND HAS AS ITS BOUNDARY THE SAME AS THE COUNTY IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED, TO VOLUNTARILY DISSOLVE ITSELF AND TRANSFER ITS ASSETS AND LIABILITIES TO A COUNTY IF ACCEPTED BY RESOLUTION OF ITS GOVERNING BODY; TO REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED BEFORE TAKING A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF ITS GOVERNING BODY, THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY, AND THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION OF THE COUNTY; TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6-11-2140; TO PROVIDE FOR CALCULATING THE MILLAGE LIMITATION FOR A COUNTY WHEN A SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT TRANSFERS ITS ASSETS AND LIABILITIES TO A COUNTY; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT THAT PROVIDES BOTH RECREATIONAL AND AGING SERVICES.

(R425, H. 4867 (Word version)) -- Reps. Cato, Harrell, Haley and Viers: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-2-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF ACCOUNTANTS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "ATTEST" AND "SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCY" AND TO DEFINE "HOME OFFICE" AND "PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS"; TO AMEND SECTION 40-2-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT TO BE LICENSED TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF ACCOUNTANCY, TO RENDER CERTAIN ACCOUNTING SERVICES, AND TO USE CERTAIN ACCOUNTANCY TITLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT OUT-OF-STATE LICENSEES WHO QUALIFY FOR A PRACTICE PRIVILEGE AND OUT-OF-STATE

(R426, 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 FEBRUARY 15, 2010.

(R427, H. 4950 (Word version)) -- Rep. Cooper: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 64 SO AS TO ENACT A NEW "SOUTH CAROLINA TEXTILES COMMUNITIES REVITALIZATION ACT" AND PROVIDE THE DEFINITIONS AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR TAX CREDITS ALLOWED BY THIS CHAPTER; AND TO REPEAL CHAPTER 32 OF TITLE 6, THE

(R428, H. 4953 (Word version)) -- Reps. Cooper, Harrell and Bingham: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EDUCATION, BY ADDING CHAPTER 151 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE SOUTH CAROLINA LIGHTRAIL CONSORTIUM, TO PROVIDE FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF THE CONSORTIUM, AND FOR ITS FUNDING, DUTIES, AND POWERS.

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 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. 5012 (Word version), R. 398, for the same reason I vetoed H. 3632, R. 217, earlier this year and S. 910, R. 356, in 2006. In both of those cases, the vetoes were sustained, and I've taken the liberty of including my reasoning once again this time in hopes that this veto will once again be sustained for what would now be a third time.

Although this bill is well intentioned, I am vetoing it because I still believe wherever possible government should resist the urge to place mandates on private business. This bill mandates that a licensed nurse must be clearly identified by wearing an identification badge at least one inch by three inches in size. The only difference between this bill and the two bills already vetoed is that this one allows the badge can bear either the nurse's first or last name, or both and title.

Government mandates on the private sector have a cost. As just stated, we believe only in the event of an overwhelming societal need should we use the force of government to compel private action. In 2005, I reluctantly allowed a bill to go into law (Lewis Blackman Hospital Safety Act) that mandated ID tags for certain medical personnel in hospitals. I did so because the bill's proponents made a compelling case that patients and their families needed to be able to

This bill, by contrast, requires more than 58,000 nurses statewide to wear an ID tag, even though many nurses operate in non-emergency settings. In fact, a sizeable proportion of these nurses work almost exclusively in private practices, and many people in these settings have longstanding relationships with their caregivers. In such places, the public utility of a name tag is negligible, and in those settings, we believe name tag arrangements should be decided not by government mandates - but by patient demand in the nursing marketplace. We believe that a demand by patients and their families can be met by individual nurses and nursing businesses, and that all of these parties are capable of figuring the appropriate times and venues in which to wear an appropriately sized name tag.

In our view, a wiser course is to leave these regulations to professional organizations such as the South Carolina Medical Association or the South Carolina Nurses' Association. However valuable name tags may or may not be in specific situations, we simply believe it is not Columbia's place to impose them.

For these reasons, I am returning H. 5012, R. 398, without my signature.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 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 signature H. 4982 (Word version), R. 395.

This bill sets and appropriates millage for educational purposes in Dillon County. I did not sign this bill because it only furthers what we

In simple terms, let me explain how the current process shreds the notion of Home Rule, and the idea of allowing working people to have a voice in how their local schools are run. Rather than do as every other county in the state does, and having a local board decide local school funding - in this county, one person is the proverbial "king" of funding. The board is chosen by the House member from Dillon County and the two Senators who represent, but do not reside in Dillon County. To further highlight the bizarre nature of the governance, the appointing authority is also the head football coach and athletic director at Dillon High School - giving him power over the people who employ him and set his salary.

Earlier this year, I vetoed H. 4844 which changed the terms of a referendum that had already been approved by the Dillon County voters. It came as no surprise that the veto was overridden in the House by a 1-0 vote as only the bill's sponsor was expected to vote.

It defies logic that the state legislative process should be used to perform functions that are routinely handled by the local citizenry in 45 other counties around the state. Even when the voters are granted input, their wishes are overruled by legislative fiat - as evidenced in the case of H. 4844. We have long advocated for some uniformity in structure and governance of school boards to provide greater accountability and transparency to the communities they serve. However, we hold Dillon County out as the single greatest example of the need for such a reform.

In the specific case of Dillon County, we believe the time has come for Columbia to let go of the control it exercises over the school district. While the General Assembly does play a very important role in education - both in policy and funding - it should be at a statewide level. With Dillon County schools, the members of the Board of Education are appointed by the legislative delegation and school taxes are set by legislation.

For the reasons stated above, I am vetoing H. 4982, R. 395.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 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 signature H. 4815, R. 392.

H. 4815 (Word version) transfers the South Carolina Film Commission from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. Even though I have vetoed this bill, the transfer will still take place as a result of S. 1171, which I have allowed to become law without my signature. We believe that the film incentive program in its current form, unfortunately, has a negative effect on the state's economy and does not produce the return that taxpayers should see. Consequently, we write to encourage reform.

Let me begin by saying that we have long been advocates of growing the film industry in South Carolina. It needs to be remembered that this Administration was an initial proponent of film incentive legislation based on our shared belief with others in the General Assembly that a piece of something is better than all of nothing. Given what was happening in other states, we felt we needed to enact film incentives that increased our competitiveness with not only other states - but also other countries - in recruiting films to South Carolina. We have unsurpassed opportunity to be a major player in the film industry given our diverse physical geography. Outside of Southern California there is essentially no other place in the United States where you can go from the mountains to the coast in such a short time. Also, in some cases, our weaknesses in South Carolina give us a competitive advantage over other states because of the way impoverished areas of our state can provide a backdrop for films set in the past. These areas can be reinvigorated with a film crew coming to town and providing significant economic impact without producing some of the wastes or requiring some of the infrastructure demands associated with many other industries.

For these and other reasons, we have supported growing the film industry in our state, but this support needs to be provided in a way

First, S. 1171 and H. 4815 provide only superficial change to the system by moving it from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. This type of cosmetic change of simply moving a program from one agency to another does nothing to improve a program's performance for the taxpayers of this state.

Second, S. 1171 and H. 4815 continue the current practice of being too generous in providing wage rebates for out-of-state workers rather than focusing on jobs for South Carolinians. A recent study conducted by economist Frank Hefner of the College of Charleston for the South Carolina Coordinating Council for Economic Development shows that providing the current incentives results in a loss of $0.81 to the state's general revenue for every dollar invested. No one I have talked to believes it makes sense to continue a system that loses $0.81 for every dollar invested. We believe that directing wage rebates to South Carolina residents who obtain film-related jobs will have a more significant and longer lasting economic impact for the state and, consequently, the state's taxpayers.

We ask that the General Assembly consider ways to improve the film incentives program, and we support several senators' call for hearings to be held this summer to study the effectiveness of the program. Accordingly, it makes sense to wait on this bill's passage until after these hearings take place. In the meantime, we encourage the General Assembly to review Mr. Hefner's study to ensure that we make the most out of our economic incentive dollars.

For these reasons, I am vetoing H. 4815, R. 392.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 2008
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval H. 4773 (Word version), R. 390, a bill that grants the Employee Security Commission (ESC) permission to expend $8.6 million in federal funds for capital improvement projects and technology upgrades at offices around the state.

The bulk of the $8.6 million is going to fund a new ESC office in Spartanburg County, in addition to supplementing existing funds to begin construction on an ESC office in Dorchester County. Instead of putting millions of dollars toward brick and mortar, we believe the money should be put toward desperately needed and long overdue technology upgrades.

Imagine this: a mill worker who has just been laid off in Spartanburg walks into a sparkling new $5 million building and instead of inputting his information into a computer, he has to hand write his personal information multiple times on several different applications, as is currently the case. We should focus on bringing the existing antiquated system into the 21st century as other states like Virginia have done.

The old-fashioned database at ESC has been an issue for years, and we believe it is past time to get on board with a modern-day approach to keeping records. While we applaud the fact that $750,000 of the requested funds would go to create automated payment systems for specific ESC programs and for technology upgrades for the Employment and Training and Administrative Divisions, we think this process is happening too slow.

Furthermore, it is not financially fair or responsible for the taxpayers of this state to fund dozens upon dozens of staff positions to maintain a hand-written system of record-keeping. Within this bill, $1.3 million would be spent on administrative funding for the Unemployment Insurance program. While much of these requested funds are due to federal budget cuts, we still believe that resources and staff positions could be consolidated by upgrading to an automated payment system.   This Administration believes that ESC's priority should be bringing its database up to today's technological standards, which would improve customer satisfaction and make for a more efficient system to connect employers with the unemployed. The current system has separate databases for Unemployment Insurance, for a job database, and for aptitude assessments provided by the Department of Commerce. Not having a central, consolidated database causes issues with records being incomplete or unmatched from one database to

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 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 signature H. 4743 (Word version), R. 386.

H. 4743 contains two separate and unrelated provisions. The first provision expands the definition of redevelopment projects that can be funded through tax increment financing (TIF) to include affordable housing projects. The second provision allows rural water districts to provide sewer service within their respective boundaries.

We view this bill in the same way we view the underlying law, as an encroachment on property rights. The Founding Fathers believed that at the core government should protect life and
liberty - and that one of the foremost keys to protecting liberty rested in protecting the physical manifestation of one's accumulated efforts as a fee man - property. We believe that condemnation rights are one of the most awesome powers of any government and should be used sparingly, if at all. As a result of the TIF law passed three years ago, there have been efforts to erode property rights in Aiken County. Therefore, accordingly, we veto this bill on several grounds, all tied to the larger theme of individual property rights - and its close association to the freedoms that make the American system special.

First, we are vetoing H. 4743 because we believe that the TIF portion of the bill threatens individual property rights. On June 1, 2005, we vetoed S. 97, a bill that amended the TIF Law by expanding the types

H. 4743 continues the degradation of property rights by expanding the purposes for which local governments can undertake redevelopment projects using TIF. Expanding the type of projects that can be funded through TIF will only encourage local governments to undertake more redevelopment projects. In many cases, this may require local governments to condemn and take property that is needed for the redevelopment, despite the interests and rights of property owners. While we believe that providing affordable housing is often a laudable goal for government, we do not think that government should be subverting individual property rights to accomplish this goal.

Second, we are vetoing H. 4743 because it perpetuates and expands the domain of special purpose districts. Last year, we vetoed H. 3115 which allowed special purpose districts to finance the construction of lateral sewer collection lines, because the advent of home rule and the growth of county and municipal governments have rendered special purpose districts unnecessary. As we explained in that letter, special purposes districts create multiple layers of government that increase costs and reduce accountability.

H. 4743 further multiplies the inefficiency of government and reduces accountability by providing one more governmental entity the power to provide sewer services. If this legislation is enacted, then four governmental entities - counties, municipalities, special purpose districts, and rural water districts - could provide sewer services. This level of duplication is completely unnecessary because counties are very well equipped to provide sewer services to the areas served by rural water districts. At a time when South Carolinians spend roughly 130 percent of the national average on government, we should be looking for ways to increase government efficiency rather than duplicating government services as this bill does.

Third, we are vetoing this bill because the provisions of H. 4743 dealing with rural water districts are unrelated to the TIF provisions in the bill and were only added on the floor of the Senate just days before this bill was ratified. As we explained last year in our veto message regarding the Nursing Initiative Act, the South Carolina Constitution

For these reasons, we are vetoing H. 4743, R. 386.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 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 signature H. 4470 (Word version), R. 385. H. 4470 gives local governments the option of providing a property tax credit to property owners who install fire sprinklers equal to 25 percent of the cost of installation. This bill also creates a matching 25 percent state income tax credit for fire sprinkler installation costs when the local government implements the property tax credit.

While we applaud the bill's intent to reduce fire deaths and damage, it should come as no surprise that we are vetoing this legislation since this Administration has been clear to members of the House and Senate in correspondence throughout this legislative session regarding its position regarding fire sprinklers and tax subsidies. In correspondence dated February 13th of this year, we outlined this Administration's reluctance to support a fire sprinkler tax credit that was so large as to essentially amount to a near total taxpayer subsidy.

The tax consequences of this bill is smaller than the one originally proposed, and, in that regard, we give the General Assembly credit; however, it still creates a taxpayer-funded subsidy of 50 percent of the

Public investing at this level may well bring with it several unintended consequences. First, things get more expensive when someone else is picking up the tab. If the costs are largely paid by a third party as they are in this proposal, competitive pricing becomes a secondary concern and, in this regard, taxpayers suffer.

Second, we fear that the discriminatory nature of this legislation makes it constitutionally suspect. The South Carolina Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that no person "be denied equal protection of the laws." H. 4470 potentially denies the citizens equal protection because it does not make the income tax credit available to all South Carolina citizens. Some in legal circles have argued it makes no sense to make a distinction as to who is entitled to a tax credit based on the actions of their local government. In this sense, this legislation is similar to the property tax exemption that was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor because the exemption was not provided on an equal basis.

For these reasons, we are vetoing H. 4470, R. 385.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 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 signature H. 4339 (Word version), R. 382, which allows National Guard members who joined after June 30,

Let me begin by saying that we sincerely respect and appreciate the service of all National Guard members. However, we believe that given the long-term financial uncertainty that our state faces, especially in regard to $20 billion of unfunded promises to retirees in retirement benefits and health insurance, we should not be providing a permanent, recurring obligation for this pension plan as this bill does.

The FY 2007-08 budget included a temporary proviso that allowed for the pension payments provided in H. 4339 and provided $3.9 million in funding for these payments. This year's budget removed the proviso but continued funding in the amount $4 million. H. 4339 will remove the temporary nature of this pension system and will require annually recurring funding of approximately $4 million for the next 28 years based on the actuarial estimates.

As well intended as this proposal is, every soldier lives by the notion of doing first things first, and, accordingly, we believe that the state needs to begin paying off its future unfunded liabilities of $27 billion in retiree and health insurance benefits before it creates another retirement benefit. If the annual $4 million appropriation anticipated over the next 28 years for National Guard pension payments under this bill was dedicated to the retirement reserves, we would be taking a small but meaningful step toward paying down the retirement system's unfunded liabilities. Instead, we are creating another burden on the next generation of taxpayers, many of whom may be soldiers, with a new pension system. We continue to believe that we should not be saddling our children with debts we cannot afford. I have struggled over this bill given my real admiration for members of the Guard, but part of the value system of the Guard is tied to the notion of Honor. Accordingly, I believe we must first honor our existing obligations, indeed, before creating new ones.

For these reasons, I am vetoing H. 4339, R. 382.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 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 vetoing and returning without my approval H. 3993 (Word version), R. 378. This bill designates opening day of the annual major league baseball season each year as "Historic Baseball Leagues Day in South Carolina."

While we appreciate the intent of "Historic Baseball Leagues Day in South Carolina" in reminding each of us of the greatness of what many believe to be indeed America's greatest sport, the value of sports - and even the subtle pleasure of sharing a hot dog in the stands with a loved one, in signing H. 4731, the "Juneteenth Celebration of Freedom Day" earlier this year, we suggested that a moratorium on further "special days" legislation might be appropriate at this time. Just as with hot dogs while in the stands, you can have too much of a good thing.

I offered two reasons. First, by establishing so many days, we dilute the value of the intended recognition. Second, we already have a concurrent resolution process by which members of the public can request the General Assembly to recognize certain days, weeks, or months for special purposes. In the vast majority of cases, it is simply unnecessary to raise these designations to the level of state law.

South Carolina state law currently recognizes 18 "special days," such as "Frances Willard Day," "General Pulaski's Memorial Day," and "POW/MIA Recognition Day," just to name a few. During my time in office, I have signed a number of other "special days" bills - including "Francis Marion Day," "Airborne Heritage Day," and "Fibromyalgia Awareness Day."

We believe the concurrent resolution process would be the more proper channel through which to recognize historic baseball leagues. For this reason, I have vetoed H. 3993, R. 378.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 16, 2008
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval H. 3812 (Word version), R. 416.

This bill grants two additional exceptions to the current cap imposed on local governments' ability to increase millage. First, this bill grants an exception for local governments to raise millage for the purpose of purchasing residential development rights of undeveloped property near a U.S. military base if the property is determined by the local government to be an undesirable encroachment upon the military base. Second, this bill grants an exception for one county - Chesterfield County - to increase millage to purchase capital equipment for the county.

We recognize the value of the exception created in this bill to lessen encroachment on military bases in our State, especially in a city like Sumter that relies on Shaw Air Force as a local economic driver. It is a gross understatement to say that the economic fortunes of the Sumter area very much rest on Shaw Air Force base. As an Administration, we have worked to keep Shaw as a part of the Sumter community, and we will continue to do so. In 2004, we worked with the Military Base Task Force on legislation that would ensure that military bases have a voice in local zoning around the base. H. 3812 allows for the cap to be lifted by the county council in an effort to preserve land around the base. Our bias in this Administration is toward home rule. However, in the case of tax increases, we have always asked that a referendum process be used to give the taxpayers maximum input into the taxes they pay. In this case, given the magnitude of Shaw's impact to the Sumter region we would support bringing back legislation that allowed for the cap to be lifted if that change were approved by local voters rather than limiting this decision to County Council.

The reason we ultimately are vetoing this bill, and my primary objection to H. 3812, lies in the fact that it leads us down a very slippery slope of piercing holes in the limitation on local governments'

In 2006, a new exception was carved out to deal with implications of the Property Tax Relief Act. Ultimately, we agree with the General Assembly's original intent to limit the tax burden at the local level, and we believe this legislation undermines their good intentions. As legitimate as the needs are for grading equipment in Chesterfield County, or land around Shaw to protect from encroachment - they also represent a 40 percent increase in the number of exemptions that have traditionally limited local governments' taxing authority. Exemptions have a tendency of growing exponentially as those with a good cause point to an existing exemption and ask, "if they could be exempted, why can't we?"

For these reasons, I am vetoing H. 3812, R. 416.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 16, 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 signature H. 4950 (Word version), R. 427.

This bill clarifies the definition of a textile mill in order to qualify for incentives included in the South Carolina Textiles Communities Revitalization Act of 2004.

We are vetoing this bill because it has almost identical language as contained in S. 1171 - a bill that became law on June 12, 2008, thus making H. 4950 redundant.

We also believe, for the record, that the slight difference favored in the earlier bill represents a more responsible approach with regard to

For these reasons, I am vetoing H. 4950, R. 427.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 16, 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. 3912 (Word version), R. 417.

This bill revises several provisions of the Physician Practice Act. Although the majority of the bill serves as a clean up to the statute, I have concerns about sections six and seven. These two sections, which were added the last day of session, state "determination of medical necessity of a decision affecting the diagnosis and/or treatment of a patient is not the practice of medicine."

First, our administration has always respected the relationship between a physician and patient and believes that the act of determining medical necessity falls within the practice of medicine. No one can professionally determine what treatment a patient needs without having a license to practice medicine. The physician must establish a medical record, examine the patient, make a diagnosis and document the rationale for treatment.

However, this bill steps between the physician and patient relationship. By stating that the determination of medical necessity is not the practice of medicine, this bill allows insurance company medical directors to tell a physician what treatments patients should have - even with no direct connection to or responsibility for the care of the patient. Additionally, this bill offers no public protection by not requiring a medical director to be licensed to practice medicine in our state and subject to our laws.

Secondly, while patients continue to be faced with ever increasing health insurance costs, a health insurer has a direct financial conflict of interest with regard to the review process - especially in favor of denial of payment. By continuing to deny an ordered medical procedure as "not deemed medically necessary," or "experimental," the insurance company rations health care and undermines the trust placed in physicians by the public.

For these reasons, I am returning H. 3912, R. 417, without my signature.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 16, 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. 4554 (Word version), R. 421, a bill that requires the South Carolina Real Estate Commission to automatically approve all Certified Commercial Investment Member (CCIM) designation courses approved by the CCIM Institute - without the content of the coursework first being examined and approved by the Real Estate Commission.

As one who was once a commercial real estate agent and one who will work in that field again, I recognize that the CCIM designation is one of the most coveted in the industry. Nationally only six percent of

First, from a procedural standpoint, we are concerned that the General Assembly is debating a process that is already in place. The Real Estate Commission is authorized to review, approve, and regulate education courses from including, but not limited to, accredited colleges, universities, private business entities, organizations, schools, associations, and institutions. To date, the Real Estate Commission has approved 123 entities providing pre-licensure and continuing education courses. Accordingly, the Real Estate Commission has the ability to automatically approve CCIM courses if it so chooses; therefore, we see no reason for the General Assembly to preempt authorities now vested with the Commission.

Second, this bill would open up the State to lawsuits by other real estate teaching organizations that don't enjoy automatic approval status. We believe that government should deal with vendors, suppliers, employees, and, even in this case, those who would teach real estate classes, in a way that is equitable and fair to all parties. Although CCIM courses are highly rated in the industry, they are not the only ones available to those interested in entering the real estate profession or for the more than 50,000 agents licensed in South Carolina who must obtain continuing education hours. Though they are great courses, by automatically approving CCIM coursework, our legal staff believes it will create unnecessary problems.

For these reasons, I am returning H. 4554, R. 421, without my signature.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The following was received and referred to the appropriate committee for consideration:

Document No. 3213
Agency: Department of Insurance
Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Sections 38-3-110, 38-13-80, 38-90-150, and 38-90-630

The following was introduced:

H. 5281 (Word version) -- Reps. Littlejohn, Anthony, Kelly, Mahaffey, Mitchell, W. D. Smith, Talley, Walker, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, 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, 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, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, 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, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE HONORABLE G. RALPH DAVENPORT, JR., OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY FOR HIS SIXTEEN YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TO WISH HIM MUCH SUCCESS AND FULFILLMENT IN THE YEARS TO COME.

Whereas, the Honorable G. Ralph Davenport, Jr., of Spartanburg County, for sixteen years has capably and faithfully represented the citizens of House District 37 in the House of Representatives of this great State; and

Whereas, born to Guy and Peggy Davenport on April 18, 1947, the young Ralph prepared himself for an active business and legislative

Whereas, this civic-minded businessman, a resident of Boiling Springs, takes a keen interest in the welfare of his community, as shown in his involvement with numerous worthy causes. He is co-founder of Spartanburg Citizens for Tax Relief, Inc., and South Carolina Citizens for Tax Relief, Inc.; former commissioner of the Boiling Springs Volunteer Fire Department; an Eagle Scout with Palms, as well as a recipient of the Order of the Arrow; and a lifetime member of the Parent Teacher Association, having served on the Boiling Springs Elementary School PTA board. In addition, at the State House, he has most recently served on the House Ways and Means Committee; and

Whereas, the proud parents of daughters Sara Elizabeth and Mary Katherine, Ralph Davenport and his wife, the former Jean Rogers, hold membership at First Baptist Church in North Spartanburg and find their strength in the support of faith and family; and

Whereas, this public servant blends those qualities that have allowed him to bring seriousness and determination to his service, while at the same time maintaining his self-depreciating personal style; and

Whereas, as he winds up his service in the House of Representatives, it is appropriate for members of the House of Representatives to pause in their deliberations so that they might express to their friend and colleague their appreciation for the faithful and conscientious service he has rendered on behalf of his constituents and all the people of the State of South Carolina, and extend to him their best wishes for happiness and many enjoyable challenges in the days ahead. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives, by this resolution, commend the Honorable G. Ralph Davenport, Jr., of Spartanburg County for his sixteen years of dedicated service as a member of the House of Representatives and wish him much success and fulfillment in the years to come.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5282 (Word version) -- Reps. Littlejohn, Anthony, Davenport, Kelly, Mahaffey, Mitchell, W. D. Smith, Talley, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, 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, 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, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, 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, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. "BOB" WALKER OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY FOR HIS SIXTEEN YEARS OF OUTSTANDING AND DEDICATED SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TO WISH HIM SUCCESS AND HAPPINESS IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

Whereas, the Honorable Robert E. "Bob" Walker of Spartanburg County has represented the citizens of House District 38 for sixteen years with distinction and steadfast dedication, serving as the chairman of the Education and Public Works Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives and as the vice chairman of the Spartanburg County Delegation; and

Whereas, he distinguished himself as an officer and pilot in the United States Air Force from 1966 to 1970, where he received numerous commendations, and as a result developed a deep appreciation for our men and women in uniform and for our veterans; and

Whereas, in 1966, Bob Walker married his beloved wife Martha A. Johnson, and together they raised a fine son, Robert Gregory "Greg" Walker; and

Whereas, a lieutenant colonel, Greg followed his father into the United States Air Force as a pilot, flying missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he and his wife Robyn have blessed his parents with three adoring grandchildren, Sara, Tommy, and Emma; and

Whereas, Bob Walker served his community as a member of the Spartanburg County District One School Board from 1983 to 1991 and the Spartanburg County School Board from 1991 to 1992, as a member of the advisory board of Landrum First National Bank, as treasurer and foundation trustee of the Landrum Lions Club, and as a deacon of Landrum First Baptist Church; and

Whereas, he was named the Landrum Lion of the Year in 1977 and 1979 and was elected to the South Carolina Lion Hall of Fame in 1990, and in 1997 he was selected as the South Carolina Independent Insurance Agent of the Year; and

Whereas, Bob Walker introduced legislation that reestablished the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission, and the South Carolina Aviation Association acknowledged his passion and skill as a pilot by awarding him the 2004 Spirit of Aviation Award and naming him the 2007 Aviator of the Year, and in 2007 he was named to the South Carolina Aviation Hall of Fame; and

Whereas, during his service as a member and as chairman of the Education and Public Works Committee, he helped to negotiate the

Whereas, the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives will miss the devotion and leadership that Bob Walker has brought to the House of Representatives on behalf of his constituents and all South Carolinians and wish him continued success as he continues to serve his community in various arenas. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives, by this resolution, commend the Honorable Robert E. "Bob" Walker of Spartanburg County for his sixteen years of outstanding and dedicated service as a member of the House of Representatives and wish him success and happiness in all his future endeavors.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to the Honorable Robert E. "Bob" Walker.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5283 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Knight, Young, 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, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss,

Whereas, the Honorable Heyward Groverman Hutson has represented the citizens of House District 94 for five years and has served recently on the Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives; and

Whereas, born in Summerville in 1936 the son of Annie Christabel Limehouse and Heyward Groverman Hutson, he graduated from the United States Military Academy, West Point, in 1958 and earned a master's degree from Syracuse University in 1971; and

Whereas, in 1961, he married his beloved wife Evelyn Carroll Harnett, and together they raised four fine children, Ellyn Carroll, Madilyn Anne, Heyward Groverman III, and Robert Waddington; and

Whereas, in the patriotic tradition of the sons of South Carolina, he served his country with distinction from 1958 to 1985, serving two tours of duty in Vietnam, two in Europe, and two at the Pentagon, spanning nine years, and was awarded the Bronze Star and the Defense Superior Service Medal; and

Whereas, he has further served his community as a member of the Dorchester County Council from 1988 to 1992, the president of the Summerville Preservation Society since 1988, the vice president of the Confederation of South Carolina Local Historical Societies from 2002 to 2004, and the president of the West Point Society of Charleston from 1991 to 1993. In 1996, he received the Order of the Palmetto, the

Whereas, the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives are grateful to Heyward Hutson for his years of service to the citizens of South Carolina and wish him fulfillment as he continues to serve his community in various arenas. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives, by this resolution, commend the Honorable Heyward Groverman Hutson of Dorchester County for his five years of dedicated service as a member of the House of Representatives and wish him success in all his future endeavors as he departs public service.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to the Honorable Heyward Groverman Hutson.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5284 (Word version) -- Reps. G. R. Smith, Allen, Bannister, Bedingfield, Cato, Hamilton, Haskins, Leach, Loftis, Rice, Shoopman, Taylor, Agnew, Alexander, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, 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, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Hutson, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Limehouse, Littlejohn, 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, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sellers, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, G. M. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper,

Whereas, for twelve years, the Honorable Fletcher N. Smith, Jr. has represented the citizens of House District 23 in Greenville County with attention and diligence in the House of Representatives of this great State; and

Whereas, reared in Gaffney, the young Fletcher Smith, son of Fletcher and Louise Smith, graduated from Wofford College with a bachelor of arts and subsequently earned his law degree at the University of South Carolina; and

Whereas, Representative Smith in his legislative capacity has labored on the House Judiciary Committee and added a strong voice to the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus. Prior to being elected to the House, he served as a Greenville County councilman from 1989 to 1996; and

Whereas, in appreciation for his efforts, he was voted Greenville's 2007 State Representative of the Year by readers of The Greenville Herald newspaper; and

Whereas, married to the former Wilhelmena Elizabeth Bowling since 1981, Fletcher Smith is the proud father of their two children, Fletcher N. III and William Louis; and

Whereas, Fletcher Smith's colleagues in the House of Representatives, understanding that he will not return in 2009, wish to express their heartfelt appreciation for his committed service to the people of District 23, as well as their best wishes for even greater contentment as he takes on new projects in the years ahead. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to our distinguished colleague, the Honorable Fletcher N. Smith.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5285 (Word version) -- Reps. G. R. Smith, Allen, Bannister, Bedingfield, Cato, Hamilton, Haskins, Loftis, Rice, Shoopman, F. N. Smith, Taylor, Agnew, Alexander, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, 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, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Hutson, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Limehouse, Littlejohn, 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, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sellers, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, G. M. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. "BOB" LEACH, SR., OF GREENVILLE COUNTY FOR HIS TWELVE YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TO WISH HIM SUCCESS IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS AS HE DEPARTS PUBLIC SERVICE.

Whereas, the Honorable Robert W. "Bob" Leach, Sr., has represented the citizens of House District 21 for twelve years and has

Whereas, born in Greenville in 1932, he served his country in the patriotic tradition of South Carolina's sons in the United States Navy during the Korean War from 1950-1953; and

Whereas, upon his return to South Carolina, he attended Anderson College from 1953-1954 and then earned a bachelor's degree from Columbia College in Columbia, Missouri; and

Whereas, a devoted husband, Bob married his beloved wife, Marilynn L. Lee in 1980; and

Whereas, Bob served on the Greenville County Council from 1980 to 1996 and was its chairman from 1991 to 1992; and

Whereas, he further served his community as a board member of the South Carolina Association of Counties and received the strength for his many duties as a member of Taylors First Baptist Church; and

Whereas, the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives will miss the their colleague Bob Leach and the reliable work and genuine spirit he has brought to the House of Representatives and wish him continued success in his private life as he leaves the State House. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives, by this resolution, commend the Honorable Robert W. "Bob" Leach, Sr., of Greenville County for his twelve years of dedicated service as a member of the House of Representatives and wish him success in all his future endeavors as he departs public service.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to the Honorable Robert W. "Bob" Leach, Sr.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5286 (Word version) -- Reps. G. R. Smith, Allen, Bannister, Bedingfield, Cato, Hamilton, Leach, Loftis, Rice, Shoopman, F. N. Smith, Taylor, Agnew, Alexander, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, 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, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Hutson, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Limehouse, Littlejohn, 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, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sellers, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, G. M. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE HONORABLE GLORIA ARIAS HASKINS OF GREENVILLE COUNTY FOR HER EIGHT YEARS OF COMMITTED SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TO WISH HER ALL THE BEST IN THE YEARS TO COME.

Whereas, the Honorable Gloria Arias Haskins of Greenville County for eight years has loyally represented the citizens of House District 22 in the House of Representatives of this great State; and

Whereas, born in Bogota, Colombia, to Salomon and Betty Bardón Arias, Gloria Haskins attended City University of New York and Bob Jones University in Greenville; and

Whereas, not one to neglect her civic duty, Representative Haskins has served her community in numerous capacities, among them as spokeswoman for the Cancer Society, board member for the Carolina Hope Christian Adoption Agency, member of the Greenville Hospital System Diversity Board and Greenville Technical College Educational Diversity Board, and delegation secretary for the Republican

Whereas, wife of the late Representative Terry E. Haskins, she and her husband parented four children, David, Bryan, Hayden, and Harlan, their proud mother being blessed by the strong support of her family; and

Whereas, on the occasion of her departure from the House of Representatives, her House colleagues, grateful for Gloria Haskins' efforts to serve her constituents, extend their best wishes for much success and fulfillment in the new challenges she looks forward to in the days ahead. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives, by this resolution, commend the Honorable Gloria Arias Haskins of Greenville County for her eight years of committed service as a member of the House of Representatives and wish her all the best in the years to come.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to our distinguished colleague, the Honorable Gloria Arias Haskins.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5287 (Word version) -- Rep. Barfield: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR WILLIAM CHANDLER, AYNOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATING SENIOR, FOR HIS ILLUSTRIOUS CAREER AS A PREMIERE ATHLETE, AND TO CONGRATULATE HIM UPON RECEIVING A FOOTBALL SCHOLARSHIP TO COASTAL CAROLINA UNIVERSITY.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5288 (Word version) -- Rep. Coleman: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND A WARM AND HEARTY GREETING TO THE FAMILIES GATHERING TO CELEBRATE THE OCCASION OF THE KELLER FAMILY REUNION TO BE HELD FROM SEPTEMBER 11 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 13, 2008, IN MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5289 (Word version) -- Reps. Erickson, 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, 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, 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 RECOGNIZING COMMODORE AND MRS. LES BREDIGER ON THEIR VITAL ROLES IN COORDINATING THE FIFTY-THIRD ANNUAL BEAUFORT WATER FESTIVAL AND CONGRATULATING HISTORIC BEAUFORT ON ITS TRADITION OF PRODUCING ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR VOLUNTEER FESTIVALS ON THE SOUTHEASTERN COAST.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5290 (Word version) -- Reps. 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, 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 PROFOUND SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UPON THE DEATH OF HARRIET MCBRYDE JOHNSON OF CHARLESTON AND TO EXTEND THEIR DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HER FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5291 (Word version) -- Reps. Scott, Bales, Ballentine, Brady, Cotty, Harrison, Hart, Howard, J. H. Neal, Rutherford and J. E. Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE HONORABLE KAY PATTERSON OF RICHLAND COUNTY FOR HIS MORE THAN THIRTY-FOUR YEARS OF FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF RICHLAND COUNTY AND THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO WISH HIM HAPPINESS AND FULFILLMENT IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

Whereas, he was born in Darlington County on January 11, 1931. His parents were James and Leila Patterson. He was reared in Darlington and Sumter counties by his grandmothers, Mrs. Meta Patterson and Mrs. Emma Joseph. He is a 1949 graduate of Lincoln High School in Sumter; and

Whereas, he served his country with distinction in the United States Marine Corps as a buck sergeant. He earned a bachelor's degree from Allen University and pursued additional education at Temple University; and

Whereas, Senator Patterson earned his master's degree in education from South Carolina State College in 1971; and

Whereas, he received honorary doctor of laws degrees from both South Carolina State University and the University of South Carolina; and
Whereas, he taught for fourteen years at W. A. Perry Middle School, C.A. Johnson High School, and Benedict College; and

Whereas, he began his career at the State House in 1974 with election to the South Carolina House of Representatives, capturing a seat he filled until 1985, when he was elected to the Senate. In 1990, he served as chairman of the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus; and

Whereas, Senator Patterson is a member of five Senate committees: Banking and Insurance, Corrections and Penology, Education, Finance, and Invitations. He also serves as chairman of the Richland County Legislative Delegation and was honored in the BellSouth 2003 South Carolina African-American History Calendar; and

Whereas, married to Jean James of Pinewood, he is the father of Eric (deceased) and Pamela, as well as proud grandfather of Eric, Jr., Ashley, and Courtland. Senator Patterson is a member of St. Luke's Episcopal Church, where he has served as senior warden, secretary,

Whereas, the members of the General Assembly regretted to learn that he would not seek re-election, and wish to express their deepest gratitude for his dedicated service to the people of Richland County and the State of South Carolina, as well as their sincere wishes for enjoyable challenges in the years ahead. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the members of the South Carolina General Assembly, by this resolution, commend the Honorable Kay Patterson of Richland County for his thirty-four years of faithful service to the citizens of Richland County and the State of South Carolina and wish him happiness and fulfillment in all his future endeavors.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to our distinguished colleague, the Honorable Kay Patterson.

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

The following was introduced:

H. 5292 (Word version) -- Reps. Breeland, 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, 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, Scott, Sellers, Shoopman, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith,

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5293 (Word version) -- Rep. G. Brown: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE PROFOUND SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UPON THE DEATH OF NORA L. HATFIELD OF LEE COUNTY AT THE AGE OF NINETY-FIVE AND TO EXTEND THEIR DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HER FAMILY, MANY FRIENDS, AND COMMUNITY.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5294 (Word version) -- Rep. Bingham: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE HONORABLE AVERY B. WILKERSON, JR., OF LEXINGTON COUNTY ON THE OCCASION OF HIS RECENT APPOINTMENT TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5295 (Word version) -- Reps. G. M. Smith, Weeks, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle,

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5296 (Word version) -- Reps. Weeks, G. M. Smith, 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,

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5297 (Word version) -- Rep. Anderson: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE HOPEWELL AME CHURCH AND THE REVEREND DOCTOR KYLON JEROME MIDDLETON UPON THE OCCASION OF THE DEDICATION OF ITS NEW SANCTUARY ON SATURDAY, JUNE 21, 2008.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5298 (Word version) -- Rep. Anderson: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR REVEREND JOHN RANDOLPH, JR., AND HIS WIFE, MRS. ETHEL MAE GILLIANS RANDOLPH, BOTH OF CHARLESTON COUNTY, FOR THEIR MANY OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEIR FAMILY, FAITH, AND COMMUNITY, AND TO WISH THEM ALL THE BEST UPON THEIR RETIREMENT FROM THE CHARLESTON DISTRICT OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5299 (Word version) -- Reps. Perry, Stewart, Spires, J. R. Smith, D. C. Smith, Clyburn, 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, 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, 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, W. D. Smith, Stavrinakis, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING WHITNEY SIMONS OF AIKEN COUNTY AS SHE CAPS HER REMARKABLE COLLEGIATE CAREER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA BY WINNING THE 2008 SOUTH CAROLINA PRESIDENT'S AWARD FOR EXTRAORDINARY TALENT IN ATHLETICS, SCHOLARSHIP, LEADERSHIP, AND SERVICE.

The Resolution was adopted.

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

Agnew                  Alexander              Allen
Anderson               Anthony                Bales
Ballentine             Bannister              Battle
Bedingfield            Bingham                Bowen
Brady                  Branham                Brantley
Breeland               G. Brown               R. Brown
Chalk                  Clemmons               Clyburn

Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Crawford               Daning
Dantzler               Delleney               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
Loftis                 Lowe                   Lucas
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                F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. 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

The SPEAKER granted Rep. CATO a leave of absence for the day.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. LITTLEJOHN a leave of absence for the day.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. DUNCAN a leave of absence for the day.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. BOWERS a leave of absence for the day.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. MACK a leave of absence for the day due to medical reasons.

Rep. W. D. SMITH made a statement relative to Rep. WALKER'S service in the House.

Rep. WALKER made a statement relative to his service in the House.

Rep. LIMEHOUSE made a statement relative to Rep. HUTSON'S service in the House.

Rep. HUTSON made a statement relative to his service in the House.

I would like first and foremost to thank my wife, Evelyn, who endured several major surgeries since my return to politics. I also thank you, Members of the House, for your warm welcome back after a 10 year sabbatical, especially my suitemates Ben Hagood, Shannon Erickson, and Don Bowen, the wonderful support staff, Legislative Council, and our Security staff, along with the staff in the Blatt Building, especially our Legislative Aide, Kay Hunter, who can do more in less time than anyone I've known. She's a marvelous human being.
I came back after winning 3 elections in 3 months, to do good things for South Carolina. A year is not enough time! But who knows - maybe I'll come back again. Strom Thurmond always said when asked if he would run again, "If Nancy's health holds out."

Reps. G. R. SMITH and SHOOPMAN made a statement relative to Rep. LEACH'S service in the House.

Rep. LEACH made a statement relative to his service in the House.

Rep. G. R. SMITH made a statement relative to Rep. HASKINS'S service in the House.

Rep. HASKINS made a statement relative to her service in the House.

Rep. G. R. SMITH made a statement relative to Rep. F. N. SMITH'S service in the House.

Rep. F. N. SMITH made a statement relative to his service in the House.

Rep. KIRSH presented the Order of the Palmetto to Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE for her service to the State of South Carolina.

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R385) 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: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 58-5-390 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITY MAY NOT IMPOSE A TAP FEE, RECURRING MAINTENANCE FEE, OR OTHER FEE, HOWEVER DESCRIBED FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM THAT EXCEEDS THE ACTUAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WATER LINE TO THE SYSTEM AND TO DEFINE ACTUAL COSTS; BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-3622 SO AS TO ALLOW A PROPERTY TAX CREDIT, AT THE OPTION OF THE PROPERTY-TAXING ENTITY FOR TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE COSTS OF INSTALLING A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN A COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WHEN SUCH INSTALLATION IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, TO ALLOW AN INCOME TAX

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              Battle
Bedingfield            Bingham                Bowen
Brady                  Branham                Brantley
Breeland               G. Brown               R. Brown
Chalk                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Crawford               Daning
Dantzler               Delleney               Edge

Erickson               Frye                   Funderburk
Gambrell               Govan                  Gullick
Hagood                 Haley                  Hardwick
Harrell                Harrison               Hart
Harvin                 Hayes                  Herbkersman
Hiott                  Hodges                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Hutson
Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Knight
Leach                  Limehouse              Loftis
Lowe                   Lucas                  Mahaffey
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Mitchell               Moody-Lawrence         Moss
Mulvaney               J. H. 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
W. D. Smith            Spires                 Stavrinakis
Stewart                Thompson               Toole
Umphlett               Vick                   Viers
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. MOODY-LAWRENCE 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 Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R392) H. 4815 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Merrill, Thompson, Brady, Stavrinakis, Haley, Ballentine, Cato, Cooper, Delleney, Harrison, Limehouse, Sandifer, Scarborough, Shoopman, Taylor, Viers, Walker, Young, Mahaffey, Neilson, Bales, R. Brown, Herbkersman, Edge, Bingham, Simrill, Whipper, Bedingfield and Bowers: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1-30-25, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND SECTION 1-30-80, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION AND TOURISM, SO AS TO MOVE THE SOUTH CAROLINA FILM COMMISSION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION AND TOURISM AND PROVIDE TRANSITION PROVISIONS; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 62 OF TITLE 12, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA MOTION PICTURE INCENTIVE ACT, SO AS TO MAKE CONFORMING AMENDMENTS REFLECTING THE TRANSFER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA FILM COMMISSION.

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:

Agnew                  Alexander              Allen
Anderson               Anthony                Bales
Ballentine             Bannister              Bedingfield
Bingham                Bowen                  Brady
Branham                Brantley               Breeland
G. Brown               R. Brown               Chalk
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Crawford               Daning                 Dantzler
Delleney               Edge                   Erickson
Frye                   Funderburk             Govan
Gullick                Hagood                 Haley
Hardwick               Harrell                Harrison
Hart                   Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Hutson                 Jefferson              Kelly
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Knight
Leach                  Limehouse              Loftis
Lowe                   Lucas                  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                   Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sellers
Shoopman               Simrill                Skelton
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Spires                 Stavrinakis
Stewart                Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Umphlett               Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Williams               Witherspoon
Young

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

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 363, S. 1252 by a vote of 34 to 4:

(R363) S. 1252 (Word version) -- Senators Leatherman and Peeler: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 2-75-5, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS CONCERNING RESEARCH CENTERS OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE, SO AS TO REVISE REFERENCES AS TO SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR ENDOWED PROFESSORSHIPS; TO AMEND SECTION 2-7-10, RELATING TO THE RESEARCH CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE REVIEW BOARD, SO AS TO ADD TWO MEMBERS TO THE BOARD, PROVIDE FOR THEIR APPOINTMENT, PROVIDE THAT BOARD MEMBERS RECEIVE NO COMPENSATION AND REVISE THE BOARD'S REPORTING DUTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 2-75-30, RELATING TO THE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE MATCHING ENDOWMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE ENDOWMENT FUNDING OF THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATION LOTTERY ACT, ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FUNDING OF THESE APPROPRIATIONS, PROVIDE WHAT FUNDS, INCLUDING INTEREST EARNINGS, CONSTITUTE THE TOTAL FUNDS APPROPRIATED, AND PROVIDE FOR THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE AWARDING OF ENDOWED CHAIR PROPOSALS; TO AMEND SECTION 2-75-50, RELATING TO APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO ENCOURAGE ELIGIBLE RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES TO PARTNER WITH OTHER SOUTH CAROLINA COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES TO DEVELOP PROPOSALS TO ENHANCE THIS

Very respectfully,
President

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 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 returning without my approval S. 1252 (Word version), R. 363.

This bill would remove the cap from the Centers for Economic Excellence Matching Endowment and would guarantee that $30 million a year be put toward the program. Additionally, this bill would impose special student fees at Francis Marion University essentially making students help repay bonds for new athletic facilities.

There could be nothing better intended than the idea of growing the knowledge-based economy in South Carolina. We're all for that as South Carolinians. The real question lies in how you do it and whether or not you pause, analyze, and make improvements in your efforts to do something on which there is more or less complete accord. As we have stated in several instances, our veto is not aimed at ending the Endowed Chairs program but bettering it by forcing policymakers to look at what works and what does not work in the program.

It also needs to be remembered that this debate is about whether we increase funding by $20 million and keep it within the confines of the cap that came with the original Endowed Chairs program or raise it by $30 million, break the cap, and do no review of what works and does not work. This last point is especially important given that universities like Clemson have become especially creative in defining matching dollars. Most recently they matched state money with land that had been transferred from the state to North Charleston as the "supposed" private match in the confederate era submarine restoration project from which we have yet to see any material private investment or job creation. In short, Endowed Chairs may well have merit, but in these economic times it is very important that we live within the original $200 million commitment and take a slightly longer look at where change might strengthen the program.

Overall, this Administration has many concerns about this legislation, several of which relate to the Endowed Chairs program. One can certainly grow the economy by growing government, but this Administration believes that it's far better grown by the private sector. Given South Carolina government has already funneled just shy of $200 million into the Endowed Chairs program, coupled with the importance of limiting the growth of government as a tool in growing the economy, we believe removing the cap and guaranteeing an additional $10 million, over the $20 million already promised in funding, isn't a wise course.

A better course, in our view, is to not rush forward and to leave the cap in place so that we can continue the program and possibly gain insight by reviewing the program's success. While we agree with the intent of the program, here are some reasons that we are concerned with the proposed legislation.

1. We believe that the General Assembly is reauthorizing an Act that has not lived up to its legislative intent. The program, which created endowed professorships at the three senior research universities, was initially begun as dollar-for-dollar match

As we've said in the past, we have to stop and look closely at the likely long-term effects of this type of legislation, and this veto represents a stopping point for our Administration. It is our belief that special fees tied to repayment of bonds are essentially de facto tuition payments that will only further increase the financial burden on students. This comes at a time when tuition has already skyrocketed in recent years. South Carolina currently ranks at the top of all Southeastern states for the cost of in-state tuition, and there are only six other states in the nation that have higher in-state tuition fees. At Francis Marion, tuition increased by 8.1 percent last year and the university has seen a 38 percent tuition increase over the past five years. Having a post-secondary program will serve little purpose if our children cannot afford to participate.

It is for these reasons that I am vetoing S. 1252, R. 363, and returning it without my approval.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R363) S. 1252 (Word version) -- Senators Leatherman and Peeler: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 2-75-5, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS CONCERNING RESEARCH CENTERS OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE, SO AS TO REVISE REFERENCES AS TO

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              Bedingfield
Bingham                Bowen                  Brady
Branham                Brantley               Breeland
G. Brown               R. Brown               Chalk
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Crawford               Daning                 Dantzler
Delleney               Edge                   Erickson
Frye                   Funderburk             Govan
Gullick                Hagood                 Haley
Hardwick               Harrell                Harrison
Hart                   Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Hutson                 Jefferson              Kelly
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Knight
Leach                  Limehouse              Loftis
Lowe                   Lucas                  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                   Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sellers
Shoopman               Simrill                Skelton
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Spires                 Stavrinakis
Stewart                Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Umphlett               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.

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R427) H. 4950 (Word version) -- Rep. Cooper: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 64 SO AS TO ENACT A NEW "SOUTH CAROLINA TEXTILES COMMUNITIES REVITALIZATION ACT" AND PROVIDE THE DEFINITIONS AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR TAX CREDITS ALLOWED BY THIS CHAPTER; AND TO REPEAL CHAPTER 32 OF TITLE 6, THE FORMER "SOUTH CAROLINA TEXTILES COMMUNITIES REVITALIZATION ACT".

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              Battle
Bedingfield            Bingham                Bowen
Brady                  Branham                Brantley
Breeland               G. Brown               R. Brown
Chalk                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper

Cotty                  Crawford               Daning
Dantzler               Delleney               Edge
Erickson               Frye                   Funderburk
Gambrell               Govan                  Gullick
Haley                  Hardwick               Harrell
Harrison               Hart                   Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Hiott
Hodges                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Hutson                 Jefferson
Jennings               Kelly                  Kennedy
Kirsh                  Knight                 Leach
Limehouse              Loftis                 Lowe
Lucas                  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
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Sellers                Shoopman               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                  Williams
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Simrill

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

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R382) H. 4339 (Word version) -- Reps. Cooper, Clyburn, Battle, Haskins, Harrison, Hosey, Cotty, Walker and Bales: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 9-10-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO BECOMES A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AFTER JUNE 30, 1993, IF OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE, ALSO MAY RECEIVE ADDITIONAL NATIONAL GUARD RETIREMENT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THE STATE NATIONAL GUARD RETIREMENT SYSTEM UNDER CHAPTER 10 OF TITLE 9 AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION APPLY TO NATIONAL GUARD PENSION BENEFITS PAYABLE ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007.

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              Battle
Bedingfield            Bingham                Bowen
Brady                  Branham                Brantley
Breeland               G. Brown               Chalk
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Crawford               Daning                 Dantzler
Delleney               Edge                   Frye
Funderburk             Gambrell               Govan
Gullick                Haley                  Hardwick
Harrell                Harrison               Hart
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Hiott                  Hodges                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Hutson
Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly

Kennedy                Knight                 Leach
Limehouse              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
M. A. Pitts            Rice                   Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sellers
Shoopman               Simrill                Skelton
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Stavrinakis
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Umphlett               Vick                   Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Williams               Witherspoon
Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood

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

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R386) H. 4743 (Word version) -- Reps. Mitchell, Davenport, Littlejohn, W. D. Smith, Allen, Anthony, Cato, Hardwick, Harrell, Hosey, Kennedy, Lowe, Mack, Miller, Phillips, F. N. Smith, Talley, Young, Knight and Hodges: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 31-6-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN REGARD TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT FOR MUNICIPALITIES AND TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-30, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN REGARD TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT FOR COUNTIES, SO

Rep. BINGHAM 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:

Alexander              Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Bannister
Battle                 Bingham                Bowen
Brady                  Branham                Brantley
Breeland               G. Brown               Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Crawford

Dantzler               Delleney               Edge
Frye                   Funderburk             Gambrell
Govan                  Gullick                Haley
Hardwick               Harrell                Harrison
Hart                   Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly
Knight                 Leach                  Lowe
Lucas                  McLeod                 Miller
Mitchell               Moss                   J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rice                   Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sellers
Skelton                F. N. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Spires                 Stewart
Taylor                 Toole                  Vick
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Williams
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Agnew                  Bedingfield            R. Brown
Daning                 Hagood                 Hutson
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Limehouse
Loftis                 Mahaffey               Merrill
Mulvaney               Shoopman               Simrill
G. M. Smith            Stavrinakis            Thompson
Umphlett

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

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R416) H. 3812 (Word version) -- Reps. G. M. Smith, Weeks and Ceips: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 6-1-320, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LIMIT ON PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE INCREASES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A MILLAGE RATE LIMITATION TO PURCHASE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY NEAR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEAR THOSE MILITARY INSTALLATIONS, REQUIRE AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND ESTABLISH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN THE ORDINANCE, REQUIRE A MILLAGE INCREASE TO REASONABLY RELATE TO THE PURCHASE PRICE AND BE RESCINDED IN FIVE YEARS AFTER A CERTAIN TIME, PROHIBIT REINSTATEMENT OF THE MILLAGE RATE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY AND PROVIDE FOR PAYING FOR THE REFERENDUM; TO PROVIDE FOR A LIMIT ON PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE RATE LIMITATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, DEFINE "CAPITAL EQUIPMENT", AND PROVIDE FOR MAKING EXPENDITURES RELATED TO THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND PURCHASE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT IN A COUNTY HAVING A POPULATION OF LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PERSONS AND HAS AT LEAST FORTY THOUSAND ACRES OF STATE FOREST LAND.

Rep. COTTY 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              Battle
Bedingfield            Bingham                Bowen

Brady                  Branham                Brantley
Breeland               G. Brown               R. Brown
Chalk                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Crawford               Daning
Dantzler               Delleney               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
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            M. A. Pitts
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Sellers                Shoopman
Simrill                Skelton                F. N. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. 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:

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R390) H. 4773 (Word version) -- Reps. W. D. Smith, Walker, Talley, Mahaffey, Moss, Anthony, Kelly, Littlejohn, Mitchell and Phillips: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION TO EXPEND UP TO EIGHT MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OF THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE UNDER SECTION 903 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ERECTING AND FURNISHING A BUILDING FOR USE BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, FOR FURNISHINGS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES FOR THE GAFFNEY AND UNION WORKFORCE CENTERS, EXPANDING THE LANCASTER WORKFORCE CENTER, IMPROVING THE SENECA WORKFORCE CENTER PARKING LOT, ASSISTING IN THE ERECTION AND FURNISHING A BUILDING FOR USE BY THE COMMISSION IN DORCHESTER COUNTY, AUTOMATING THE TRADE READJUSTMENT ALLOWANCES PAYMENT SYSTEM, DEVELOPING AN AUTOMATED DISASTER UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PAYMENT SYSTEM, PROVIDING COMPUTER AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES FOR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS, AND PROVIDING ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDING FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

Rep. RICE explained the Veto.

The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Alexander              Allen
Anderson               Anthony                Bales

Bannister              Battle                 Bedingfield
Bingham                Bowen                  Branham
Brantley               Breeland               G. Brown
R. Brown               Chalk                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Cotty                  Crawford
Daning                 Dantzler               Delleney
Edge                   Erickson               Frye
Funderburk             Gambrell               Govan
Gullick                Hardwick               Harrell
Harrison               Hart                   Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Herbkersman
Hiott                  Hodges                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Hutson
Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Knight
Leach                  Limehouse              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            M. A. Pitts            Rice
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Sellers                Shoopman
Simrill                Skelton                F. N. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
Stavrinakis            Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Umphlett               Vick
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Williams               Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R417) H. 3912 (Word version) -- Reps. White and Bales: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-30, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT TO BE LICENSED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE AND TO SPECIFY WHAT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS PRACTICING MEDICINE, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT A PHYSICIAN MAY DELEGATE CERTAIN TASKS TO AN UNLICENSED PERSON IF THE PHYSICIAN IS IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE AND TO PROVIDE THAT A PHYSICIAN IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM PRACTICING IN CONSULTATION WITH A SOUTH CAROLINA PHYSICIAN CONCERNING AN OPINION FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA PHYSICIAN'S CONSIDERATION IN MANAGING THE CASE AND TREATMENT OF A PATIENT IN THIS STATE; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-32, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN PROVIDING DOCUMENTATION OF RESIDENCY TRAINING FOR LICENSURE, A PHYSICIAN WHO GRADUATED FROM A SCHOOL OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES OR CANADA IS ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY LICENSED FOR THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS, RATHER THAN THE PRECEDING TEN YEARS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION MUST BE IN A BOARD CERTIFIED APPLICANT'S AREA OF SPECIALTY IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN LICENSURE WITHOUT HAVING TO PASS AN EXAMINATION; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF TERMS IN THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF PHYSICIANS, INCLUDING THE DEFINITION OF THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT RENDERING A DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL NECESSITY OR A DECISION AFFECTING THE DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT OF A PATIENT IS NOT, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE WHEN SUCH DETERMINATION OR DECISION IS A COVERAGE DECISION DENYING HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Rep. SCARBOROUGH explained the Veto.

Rep. SIMRILL spoke in favor of the Veto.
Rep. WHITE spoke against the Veto.
Rep. SCARBOROUGH spoke against the Veto.
Rep. HOWARD spoke against the Veto.

The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Alexander              Allen
Anthony                Bales                  Ballentine
Bannister              Battle                 Bedingfield
Bingham                Bowen                  Brady
Branham                Brantley               Breeland
G. Brown               R. Brown               Chalk
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cooper                 Cotty                  Crawford
Daning                 Dantzler               Delleney
Edge                   Erickson               Frye
Funderburk             Gambrell               Govan
Gullick                Haley                  Hardwick
Harrell                Harrison               Hart
Harvin                 Hayes                  Hodges
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Knight
Lowe                   Lucas                  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                Shoopman               Skelton
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Spires
Stavrinakis            Stewart                Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Umphlett
Vick                   Viers                  Walker
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Williams               Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Coleman                Hagood                 Hiott
Hutson                 Leach                  Limehouse
Loftis                 Mahaffey               Mulvaney
Owens                  Rice                   Simrill
Witherspoon

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

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R421) H. 4554 (Word version) -- Reps. Cobb-Hunter and Bedingfield: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 6-1-315, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LIMITATION ON THE IMPOSITION OR INCREASE OF A BUSINESS LICENSE TAX, SO AS TO LIMIT THE IMPOSITION OF A LICENSE, OCCUPATION, OR PROFESSIONAL TAX OR FEE UPON REAL ESTATE LICENSEES, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAX OR FEE SHALL PERMIT THE BROKER-IN-CHARGE AND THE BROKER'S AFFILIATED ASSOCIATE BROKERS, SALESPERSONS, AND PROPERTY MANAGERS TO ENGAGE IN ALL OF THE BROKERAGE ACTIVITY DESCRIBED IN

Rep. HUGGINS 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              Anthony
Bales                  Ballentine             Bannister
Battle                 Bedingfield            Bingham
Bowen                  Brady                  Branham
Brantley               G. Brown               R. Brown
Chalk                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Crawford               Daning
Dantzler               Delleney               Edge
Erickson               Frye                   Funderburk
Gambrell               Govan                  Gullick
Hagood                 Haley                  Hardwick
Harrell                Harrison               Hart
Harvin                 Hayes                  Herbkersman
Hiott                  Hodges                 Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jefferson
Jennings               Kelly                  Kirsh
Knight                 Leach                  Limehouse
Loftis                 Lowe                   Lucas
Mahaffey               McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Mitchell               Moss
Mulvaney               J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson

E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Rice
Rutherford             Scarborough            Scott
Sellers                Shoopman               Simrill
Skelton                G. M. Smith            G. R. 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:

Hutson

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

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R398) H. 5012 (Word version) -- Rep. Chalk: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-33-25 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION MAY REQUIRE STATE AND NATIONAL CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECKS OF AN APPLICANT FOR LICENSURE TO PRACTICE NURSING, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY REQUIRE SUCH CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECKS IN CONNECTION WITH AN INVESTIGATION OR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING OF A LICENSEE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT WRITING A DISHONORED CHECK IS NOT EVIDENCE OF MORAL TURPITUDE FOR PURPOSES OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION OR DISQUALIFICATION FOR LICENSURE IF PROSECUTION OF THE OFFENSE WAS DISMISSED DUE TO PROOF OF PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION; AND BY ADDING SECTION 40-33-39 SO AS TO REQUIRE A LICENSED NURSE TO WEAR AN

The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allen                  Anthony                Bales
Ballentine             Bannister              Battle
Bingham                Bowen                  Brady
Branham                Brantley               Breeland
G. Brown               R. Brown               Chalk
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Delleney               Edge                   Funderburk
Govan                  Gullick                Haley
Hardwick               Harrell                Harrison
Hart                   Harvin                 Hayes
Hiott                  Hodges                 Hosey
Huggins                Hutson                 Jefferson
Jennings               Kelly                  Kirsh
Knight                 Limehouse              Loftis
Lowe                   Lucas                  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
Skelton                F. N. Smith            J. E. Smith
Spires                 Taylor                 Vick
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Williams               Witherspoon

Agnew                  Bedingfield            Cotty
Crawford               Daning                 Erickson
Frye                   Hagood                 Leach
Merrill                Mulvaney               Simrill
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
Stavrinakis            Stewart                Thompson
Toole                  Umphlett               Young

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

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R395) H. 4982 (Word version) -- Rep. Hayes: AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY OF MILLAGE FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES IN DILLON COUNTY AND TO PROVIDE FOR ITS ALLOCATION FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES.

Rep. HAYES 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:

Clemmons               Edge                   Hayes
Jennings               Knight                 Mitchell
Neilson                E. H. Pitts            F. N. Smith
Viers                  Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Hagood

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R378) H. 3993 (Word version) -- Reps. Duncan, Bedingfield, Davenport, Barfield, Brantley, G. Brown, Ceips, Gambrell, Hiott, Hodges, Jennings, Knight, Leach, Littlejohn, Lowe, Miller, Owens, M. A. Pitts, G. M. Smith, J. R. Smith, Spires and Taylor: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 53-3-125 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE OPENING DAY OF THE ANNUAL MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL SEASON EACH YEAR IS DESIGNATED AS "HISTORIC BASEBALL LEAGUES DAY" IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allen                  Anderson               Anthony
Bales                  Bannister              Battle
Bowen                  Branham                Brantley
Breeland               G. Brown               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Dantzler               Erickson               Gambrell
Govan                  Gullick                Harrell
Hart                   Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Jefferson              Jennings
Kelly                  Knight                 Lowe
McLeod                 Miller                 Mitchell
Moss                   J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 M. A. Pitts            Rice
Rutherford             Scott                  Sellers
Skelton                F. N. Smith            J. E. Smith
Spires                 Taylor                 Thompson

Vick                   Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Williams

Those who voted in the negative are:

Agnew                  Ballentine             Bedingfield
Bingham                Brady                  Clemmons
Cotty                  Crawford               Daning
Delleney               Edge                   Frye
Funderburk             Hagood                 Haley
Hardwick               Harrison               Huggins
Hutson                 Kirsh                  Leach
Limehouse              Loftis                 Lucas
Merrill                Mulvaney               E. H. Pitts
Scarborough            Shoopman               Simrill
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
Stavrinakis            Stewart                Toole
Umphlett               Viers                  Whitmire
Witherspoon            Young

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

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has sustained the Veto by the Governor on R. 344, S. 799 by a vote of 19 to 11:

(R344, S799 (Word version)) -- Senator Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-755, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUPERVISORY AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION THERAPY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION

Very respectfully,
President

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has reconsidered the vote whereby the Veto was sustained and has overridden the Veto by the Governor on R. 344, S. 799 by a vote of 30 to 9:

(R344, S799 (Word version)) -- Senator Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-755, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUPERVISORY AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION THERAPY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION THERAPISTS MUST BE SUPERVISED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ACUPUNCTURIST; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-710,

Very respectfully,
President

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 2008
The Honorable André Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, First Floor, East Wing
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval S. 799 (Word version), R. 344.

This bill amends the Acupuncturist Practice Act to allow the Board of Medical Examiners to decide whether or not an acupuncturist can use the title "doctor." It also specifies who may perform a certain type of acupuncture called auricular detoxification therapy.

While I believe there is great value in a more holistic approach to one's health and I recognize the value of alternatives to western medical approaches, as an Administration we still fundamentally believe in the overarching need to limit the scope of government. As

By allowing the Board of Medical Examiners to approve whether or not an acupuncturist can use the title "doctor," we are duplicating regulatory oversight. In this case, the state would be providing oversight by one board - over the last one (the Acupuncture Board) created only about a year ago. An acupuncturist does not work under the direct supervision of a physician, and by creating a hybrid organizational arrangement, we only further convolute our already Byzantine and overly redundant government structure. Additionally, this would be new ground that we would be covering in that the Board of Medical Examiners does not currently decide whether or not other professions (i.e., chiropractors) can use the same title.

For these reasons, I am vetoing and returning without my signature S. 799, R. 344.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R344) S. 799 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-755, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUPERVISORY AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION THERAPY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION THERAPISTS MUST BE SUPERVISED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ACUPUNCTURIST; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-710, RELATING TO THE ACUPUNCTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT THREE MEMBERS, RATHER THAN FOUR, CONSTITUTE A QUORUM OF THE FIVE MEMBER BOARD; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-725, RELATING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH PERSONS PRACTICING ACUPUNCTURE SINCE 1980 ARE EXEMPT FROM LICENSURE, SO AS TO ALSO APPLY THESE CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTION FROM LICENSURE TO PERSONS PRACTICING

Rep. HERBKERSMAN 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:

Bowers                 G. Brown               Hayes
Huggins                Knight                 Vick

Those who voted in the negative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Bales                  Ballentine             Bannister
Battle                 Bedingfield            Bingham
Bowen                  Brady                  Branham
Breeland               R. Brown               Clemmons
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Crawford               Daning
Delleney               Edge                   Erickson
Frye                   Funderburk             Gambrell
Govan                  Gullick                Hagood
Haley                  Hardwick               Harrell
Harrison               Hart                   Harvin
Haskins                Herbkersman            Hiott
Hosey                  Howard                 Hutson
Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly
Kirsh                  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             Scarborough            Scott
Sellers                Shoopman               Simrill
Skelton                F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith
Spires                 Stavrinakis            Stewart
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Umphlett               Viers                  Weeks
White                  Whitmire               Williams
Witherspoon

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

Rep. CRAWFORD moved to reconsider the vote whereby the Veto on the following Act was sustained:

(R344) S. 799 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-755, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUPERVISORY AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION THERAPY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION THERAPISTS MUST BE SUPERVISED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ACUPUNCTURIST; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-710, RELATING TO THE ACUPUNCTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT THREE MEMBERS, RATHER THAN FOUR, CONSTITUTE A QUORUM OF THE FIVE MEMBER BOARD; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-725, RELATING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH PERSONS PRACTICING ACUPUNCTURE SINCE 1980 ARE EXEMPT FROM LICENSURE, SO AS TO ALSO APPLY THESE CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTION FROM LICENSURE TO PERSONS PRACTICING AURICULAR THERAPY SINCE 1997; TO AMEND SECTION 40-

Rep. CRAWFORD moved to table the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 403, S. 577 by a vote of 32 to 6:

(R403, S577 (Word version)) -- Senator Sheheen: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 22-3-560, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE IN MAGISTRATES COURTS IN ASSAULT AND BATTERY AND OTHER BREACH OF THE PEACE OFFENSES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MAGISTRATES COURTS' JURISDICTION FOR ALL ASSAULT AND BATTERY OFFENSES AGAINST SPORTS OFFICIALS AND COACHES TO PROVIDE FOR A FINE NOT EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS OR IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS, OR BOTH; BY ADDING SECTION 17-15-90 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF WILFUL FAILURE TO APPEAR AND PROVIDE PENALTIES BASED ON THE UNDERLYING CHARGE; TO AMEND SECTION 38-53-50, RELATING TO SURETY RELIEVED ON BOND AND SURRENDER OF A DEFENDANT, SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES WHEN A BENCH WARRANT MAY BE ISSUED FOR ARREST OF A DEFENDANT AND TO PROVIDE THAT NONPAYMENT OF FEES ALONE DOES NOT WARRANT IMMEDIATE INCARCERATION OF THE DEFENDANT; TO AMEND SECTION 38-53-70, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BENCH WARRANT AND THE REMISSION OF

Very respectfully,
President

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 16, 2008
The Honorable André Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, First Floor, East Wing
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

I am hereby vetoing S. 577 (Word version), R. 403, which, among other things, doubles the penalties for assault and battery upon coaches and sports officials.

Let me begin by saying that we appreciate Sen. Sheheen's attempt with this bill to deter assaults upon coaches and sports officials. Coaches are to be admired for the way they dedicate time and energy in instructing young people in life lessons that will make an impact on who and what these young people do and become. In the same vein, sports officials teach young athletes about the larger notion of rules going with life. It is a sorry commentary on society at large when a bill like this needs to even be debated, but it does given the fact that attacks have taken place. I believe that attacks by overzealous parents to be wrong and deserving of our greatest condemnation and prosecution under the law.

I also believe this prosecution should take place under existing law because changing it as this bill does sets a dangerous precedent of carving out a special status for coaches and officials that other citizens don't enjoy. Assault of any kind, to any South Carolinian, for any reason - is wrong and should be immediately dealt with. When we begin elevating certain people to a status where they get extra protection under the law, we begin to signal the crime can be less egregious in other instances. Again, the view of the Administration is assault is wrong to anyone - every time. There are many other individuals who perform valuable functions for society who are not entitled to special protection. For example, clergy members, Boy Scout leaders, and other types of mentors have similar roles as coaches in instructing our youth, but they would not receive extra protection under this bill. Can anyone really say that an attack on a coach is worse than an attack on a minister who is trying to help in a thorny domestic situation? We believe wrong is wrong every time and, therefore, we believe it is a better policy to create uniform penalties for attacks that give all citizens equal protection under the law.

For these reasons, I am vetoing S. 577, R. 403.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R403) S. 577 (Word version) -- Senator Sheheen: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 22-3-560, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE IN MAGISTRATES COURTS IN ASSAULT AND BATTERY AND OTHER BREACH OF THE PEACE OFFENSES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MAGISTRATES COURTS' JURISDICTION FOR ALL ASSAULT AND BATTERY OFFENSES AGAINST SPORTS OFFICIALS AND COACHES TO PROVIDE FOR A FINE NOT EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS OR IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS, OR BOTH; BY ADDING SECTION 17-15-90 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF WILFUL FAILURE TO APPEAR AND PROVIDE PENALTIES BASED ON THE UNDERLYING CHARGE; TO AMEND SECTION 38-53-50, RELATING TO SURETY RELIEVED ON BOND AND

Rep. G. M. SMITH 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:

Anderson               Anthony                Bales
Ballentine             Bannister              Battle
Bingham                Bowen                  Brady
Branham                Brantley               Breeland
G. Brown               R. Brown               Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Crawford               Dantzler
Delleney               Edge                   Funderburk
Gambrell               Govan                  Gullick
Hardwick               Harrell                Harrison
Hart                   Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Huggins                Hutson

Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly
Knight                 Leach                  Limehouse
Lowe                   Lucas                  Mahaffey
McLeod                 Miller                 Mitchell
Moss                   Mulvaney               J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Rice                   Rutherford             Sandifer
Scott                  Sellers                Skelton
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Spires
Stavrinakis            Stewart                Taylor
Toole                  Umphlett               Vick
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Williams

Those who voted in the negative are:

Agnew                  Bedingfield            Cotty
Daning                 Frye                   Hagood
Haley                  Kirsh                  Loftis
Merrill                Owens                  Scarborough
Shoopman               Simrill                Thompson
Viers                  Witherspoon

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

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has sustained the Veto by the Governor on R. 347, S. 970 by a vote of 25 to 13:

Very respectfully,
President

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has reconsidered the vote whereby the Veto was sustained and has overridden the Veto by the Governor on R. 347, S. 970 by a vote of 27 to 12:

Very respectfully,
President

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 2008
The Honorable André Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, First Floor, East Wing
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

I am vetoing and returning without my approval S. 970 (Word version), R. 347, that eliminates the current requirement that the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) must notify a school district superintendent and nurse of any students who have AIDS/HIV.

We believe that as a matter of public policy that more highly contagious diseases should be added to this notification list rather than deleted. Instead, this bill would move in the opposite direction by removing what many consider to be a very deadly disease. In the interest of health and safety for all children, DHEC should continue to notify the proper school officials if a child has AIDS/HIV. If anything, we would take this law a step further by adding two other highly contagious bloodborne diseases - Hepatitis B as well as Hepatitis C.

At a common sense level, if my son or daughter was sitting in class or was on the sporting field with a fellow student who happened to have Hepatitis C, as a parent I would want to know. It's always been my belief that we ought to maximize liberty, but in so doing, my rights end when they begin to infringe upon the rights of another. I realize that federal law prohibits an individual from passing along these relevant details (related to highly contagious bloodborne diseases) to the very students who might be impacted - but I see no reason that state law should codify this misguided principle that is now, indeed, codified at the federal level of law.

I am aware of no public outcry to change existing law, and as I mentioned earlier, I believe if anything we should be adding other highly contagious diseases to this list. For these reasons, I am vetoing and returning without my approval S. 970, R. 347.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R347) S. 970 (Word version) -- Senator Hutto: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 44-29-135, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE RECORDS, SO AS TO APPLY CONFIDENTIALITY TO RECORDS RELATING TO CASES OF A BLOODBORNE DISEASE AND TO DELETE THE PROVISION

Rep. SELLERS 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:

Allen                  Anderson               Bales
Branham                Brantley               Breeland
G. Brown               Funderburk             Govan
Hart                   Harvin                 Hayes
Hodges                 Hosey                  Howard
Jefferson              Jennings               Kennedy
Lowe                   McLeod                 Miller
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Ott
Parks                  Rutherford             Sandifer
Scott                  Sellers                F. N. Smith

J. E. Smith            Spires                 Taylor
Vick                   Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                Williams

Those who voted in the negative are:

Agnew                  Anthony                Ballentine
Bannister              Bedingfield            Bingham
Bowen                  Brady                  R. Brown
Clemmons               Coleman                Cooper
Cotty                  Crawford               Daning
Dantzler               Delleney               Edge
Frye                   Gambrell               Gullick
Hagood                 Haley                  Hardwick
Harrell                Harrison               Haskins
Hiott                  Huggins                Hutson
Kelly                  Kirsh                  Knight
Leach                  Limehouse              Lucas
Mahaffey               Merrill                Moss
Mulvaney               Neilson                Owens
Perry                  Phillips               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Rice
Scarborough            Shoopman               Simrill
Skelton                G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Stavrinakis            Stewart
Thompson               Toole                  Umphlett
Viers                  White                  Whitmire
Witherspoon            Young

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

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

(R401, S181 (Word version)) -- Senators Fair, Richardson and Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 24-13-210 AND 24-13-230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO GOOD BEHAVIOR, WORK, AND ACADEMIC CREDITS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO DEVELOP POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDELINES TO ALLOW CERTAIN PRISONERS TO RECEIVE A REDUCTION IN THEIR SENTENCES AND TO REVISE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THAT MAY BE REDUCED FROM A SENTENCE; TO AMEND SECTION 24-27-200, RELATING TO THE FORFEITURE OF WORK, EDUCATION, OR GOOD CONDUCT CREDITS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A REDUCTION IN THESE CREDITS MAY BE IMPLEMENTED PURSUANT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 30-4-40, RELATING TO MATTERS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, DRAWINGS, OR SCHEMATICS OR LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICIES WHOSE DISCLOSURE WOULD REASONABLY BE USED TO FACILITATE AN ESCAPE FROM LAWFUL CUSTODY MAY BE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE; TO AMEND SECTION 24-3-20, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF PLACES OF CONFINEMENT FOR INMATES, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE THE TERM "REGIONAL COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL JAIL" FOR THE TERM "COUNTY JAIL", AND TO INCLUDE FACILITY MANAGERS OF THE COUNTY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATORS, OR THEIR EQUIVALENT AS PERSONS WHO THE STATE MUST CONSENT TO HOUSE AS AN INMATE IN A LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL FACILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 24-3-27, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL REGIONAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DECISION TO ASSIGN WORK OR DISQUALIFY A PERSON FROM WORK IN A FACILITY IS IN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF THE FACILITY AND MAY NOT BE CHALLENGED; TO AMEND SECTION 24-3-30, RELATING TO DESIGNATION OF PLACES OF CONFINEMENT, SO AS TO REVISE THE LIST

Very respectfully,
President

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 16, 2008
The Honorable André Bauer
President of the Senate

Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

This letter is to inform you that I am vetoing and returning without my approval S. 181 (Word version), R. 401. This bill, for the most part, updates and codifies existing laws and practices.

We would like to point out our concern with one well-intentioned provision that was inserted at the request of a single senator. Section 24-3-30(B) was amended to state "To the greatest extent possible when making a determination of institutional assignment, the department must place a person convicted of an offense against the State in a place of confinement in close proximity to his home unless this placement jeopardizes security." We, unfortunately, believe this provision opens the door to many lawsuits and was put in place in a way that defies the perspective of the majority in the General Assembly.

Before I elaborate on these concerns, let me say again how I believe that the provision in question is well-intentioned. Part of unconditional love is being able to show it, and to the maximum extent possible, the state ought to be about the business of encouraging and facilitating a loved one being able to, in fact, show love and concern toward a son, daughter, cousin or nephew who is incarcerated. This is much easier to do if your loved one is housed closer to you. We empathize with families - that did not commit a crime - that are forced to travel longer distances to see their loved ones in prison. With gas prices continuing to rise, the burden on families is perhaps felt more now than in any other recent time. We believe that it is better to have inmates placed in closer proximity to their churches and loved ones, and, for this reason, it has been the position of the administration to bring families and inmates closer together whenever requested to do so. Sometimes this is possible and other times it is not, based on capacity requirements within Corrections.

Codifying what we already try to do within Corrections will have the unintended consequence of inviting lawsuits. This would take more money from a Corrections department and the inmates housed there that are already in need of more financial resources. In fact, I find it somewhat unbelievable that the General Assembly would pass yet another mandate on the Department of Corrections at the same time that the budget that they passed this year forces the Department of Corrections to run an $8 million dollar deficit. It is well known that our prisons are at capacity - and this makes it impossible to house all

We also believe the manner in which this amendment was included in this legislation highlights a procedural problem that exists in the Senate. It is our understanding that a single senator "placed his name on the bill" - even though no other senator had objections to the legislation. To get this senator to remove his objection, this amendment was included. We believe that adding this amendment to an otherwise routine bill to placate a lone senator is a poor way to make public policy - and one that, in this case, supplants the will of the body at large.

While we approve of the majority of this bill, we believe that the provision outlined above will lead to an increase in the number of lawsuits that the already underfunded Department of Corrections will be forced to defend. Without this troubling provision, we would sign this bill.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R401) S. 181 (Word version) -- Senators Fair, Richardson and Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 24-13-210 AND 24-13-230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO GOOD BEHAVIOR, WORK, AND ACADEMIC CREDITS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO DEVELOP POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDELINES TO ALLOW CERTAIN PRISONERS TO RECEIVE A REDUCTION IN THEIR SENTENCES AND TO REVISE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THAT MAY BE REDUCED FROM A SENTENCE; TO AMEND SECTION 24-27-200, RELATING TO THE FORFEITURE OF WORK, EDUCATION, OR GOOD CONDUCT CREDITS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A REDUCTION IN THESE CREDITS MAY BE IMPLEMENTED PURSUANT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 30-4-40, RELATING TO MATTERS

Rep. HAGOOD explained the Veto.

Rep. G. M. SMITH 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:

Allen                  Breeland               G. Brown
Clyburn                Funderburk             Hart
Hodges                 Hosey                  Jefferson
Mulvaney               J. M. Neal             Parks
Pinson                 Rutherford             Sellers
F. N. Smith            Taylor                 Vick
Weeks                  Whipper                Williams

Those who voted in the negative are:

Agnew                  Anderson               Anthony
Bales                  Ballentine             Bannister
Battle                 Bedingfield            Bingham
Bowen                  Brady                  Branham
R. Brown               Chalk                  Clemmons
Cobb-Hunter            Crawford               Daning
Dantzler               Delleney               Erickson
Frye                   Gambrell               Govan
Gullick                Hagood                 Haley
Hardwick               Harrell                Harrison

Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            Hiott                  Huggins
Hutson                 Jennings               Kelly
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Leach
Limehouse              Loftis                 Lowe
Lucas                  Mahaffey               McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Moss
Neilson                Owens                  Perry
Phillips               E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Rice                   Scarborough            Scott
Shoopman               Simrill                Skelton
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith            Spires                 Stavrinakis
Stewart                Thompson               Toole
Umphlett               Viers                  White
Whitmire               Witherspoon            Young

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

Rep. KELLY moved to reconsider the vote whereby the Veto on the following Act was sustained:

(R347) S. 970 (Word version) -- Senator Hutto: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 44-29-135, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE RECORDS, SO AS TO APPLY CONFIDENTIALITY TO RECORDS RELATING TO CASES OF A BLOODBORNE DISEASE AND 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; BY ADDING SECTION 44-29-137 SO AS TO REQUIRE A SCHOOL NURSE OR OTHER SCHOOL OFFICIAL TO REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL

Rep. KELLY moved to table the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 355, S. 1141 by a vote of 43 to 0:

(R355, S1141 (Word version)) -- Senators McConnell, Rankin, Martin, Leventis, Peeler, Alexander, Hayes, Setzler, Hutto, Ceips, Knotts and Malloy: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2110, AS AMENDED, 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; TO AMEND CHAPTER 52, TITLE 48, BY ADDING ARTICLE 10 SO AS TO ESTABLISH AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM PROVIDING A NONREFUNDABLE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT MANUFACTURED HOMES IN SOUTH CAROLINA; TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3587, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A TAX CREDIT FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A SOLAR

Very respectfully,
President

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 2008
The Honorable André Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, First Floor, East Wing
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval S. 1141 (Word version), R. 355. This bill amends sales tax incentives for the purchase of energy efficient manufactured homes.

Given my belief in conservation and given my belief in doing things that maximize the number of dollars in a taxpayer's pocket, I very much support energy efficiency and hope that consumers realize the benefits of purchasing products that bring with them both energy and efficiency rewards. So while I believe the bill is certainly well intentioned, I am compelled to veto it for two main reasons.

First, we continue to believe that there are already too many carve-outs and exemptions to our sale tax. Though individually these carve-outs may have merit, collectively they narrow the population from whom sales taxes are collected and effectively raise sales taxes on those entities still subject to sales taxes in South Carolina. Rather than having people in politics pick winners and losers in the marketplace or

We occasionally support making exceptions to the bias described above when it can be demonstrated that there is an overwhelming or especially strong consequence to a tax exemption. Unfortunately, this can not be demonstrated in this instance. As with any sales tax exemption, it can be shown that there is a savings to the individual - but the key is to demonstrate that it compels them to take an action that they would not have without its presence. Based on the numbers we have seen, the consumer will be compelled to take advantage of the ENERGY STAR rating even without the sales tax exemption because it is in their financial best interest to do so.

For example, the average cost of a standard manufactured home is $54,300. The cost of an ENERGY STAR rated mobile home is nearly $2,599 more, bringing the average up to $56,900. The average monthly savings that results in the reduced utility costs associated with ENERGY STAR manufactured homes averages $70 a month or $840 a year. This means that a consumer recoups the initial increased cost of the energy efficient home in just 36 months, and, in our view, this is incentive enough for consumers to purchase ENERGY STAR rated manufactured homes.

For the above reasons, I am vetoing S. 1141, R. 355.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R355) S. 1141 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Rankin, Martin, Leventis, Peeler, Alexander, Hayes, Setzler, Hutto, Ceips, Knotts and Malloy: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2110, AS AMENDED, 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

Rep. HUGGINS 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                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Ballentine
Bannister              Battle                 Bedingfield
Bingham                Bowen                  Brady
Branham                Brantley               Breeland
G. Brown               R. Brown               Chalk
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Cotty                  Crawford               Daning
Dantzler               Delleney               Erickson
Frye                   Gambrell               Govan
Gullick                Hagood                 Haley

Hardwick               Harrell                Hart
Harvin                 Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Hutson                 Jefferson              Jennings
Kelly                  Kennedy                Kirsh
Knight                 Leach                  Limehouse
Loftis                 Lowe                   Lucas
Mahaffey               McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Mitchell               Moss
Mulvaney               J. M. Neal             Neilson
Owens                  Parks                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Rice                   Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  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                   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 the Veto of S. 1141. If I had been present, I would have voted to override the Veto.

Rep. Laurie Slade Funderburk

Rep. G. M. SMITH moved to reconsider the vote whereby the Veto on the following Act was overridden:

(R355) S. 1141 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Rankin, Martin, Leventis, Peeler, Alexander, Hayes, Setzler, Hutto, Ceips, Knotts and Malloy: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2110, AS AMENDED, 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; TO AMEND CHAPTER 52, TITLE 48, BY ADDING ARTICLE 10 SO AS TO ESTABLISH AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM PROVIDING A NONREFUNDABLE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT MANUFACTURED HOMES IN SOUTH CAROLINA; TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3587, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A TAX CREDIT FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A SMALL HYDROPOWER SYSTEM AND TO DEFINE SUCH A SYSTEM; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-14-80, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ZONE TAX CREDIT, SO AS TO RESTATE THE CREDIT AS AN INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT, PROVIDE THAT THE CREDIT IS AVAILABLE FOR THE PLACEMENT IN SERVICE OF CERTAIN QUALIFIED EQUIPMENT AND A COMMITMENT TO THE REQUIRED CAPITAL INVESTMENT, PROVIDE FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR AND LIMITATIONS ON THE CREDIT, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROCESS FOR CLAIMING THE CREDIT.

Rep. SCARBOROUGH moved to table the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

(R346, S968 (Word version)) -- Senators McGill, O'Dell, Williams and Knotts: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-405, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF "WEAPON" AND THE HANDLING OF WEAPONS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, SO AS TO REMOVE "KNIFE WITH A BLADE OVER TWO INCHES LONG" FROM THE DEFINITION; TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-460, RELATING TO CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXCLUSION OF KNIVES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE OFFENSE UNLESS THEY ARE USED WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME; TO AMEND SECTION 10-11-320, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL CARRYING OR DISCHARGING OF A FIREARM ON CAPITOL GROUNDS AND WITHIN THE CAPITOL BUILDING, SO AS TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FOR A PERSON WHO POSSESSES A CONCEALABLE WEAPONS PERMIT AND WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PARK ON THE CAPITOL GROUNDS OR THE GARAGE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

Very respectfully,
President

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 2008
The Honorable André Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, First Floor, East Wing
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

I am writing to inform you that I am vetoing and returning without my signature S. 968 (Word version), R. 346. The underlying bill redefines the weapons definition of a knife with a two-inch handle. If this were the only provision of the bill, I would have no trouble signing it.

What gave us pause about this legislation was the second section, which is aimed at allowing state employees and legislators to store a concealed weapon in their vehicle when entering the State House complex. We have long supported the Second Amendment Rights of our state's citizens and have supported several bills to allow them to enjoy those rights. What I find troubling about this bill is the way that it seems to contradict the central tenet of true public service, which is putting the rights of others above oneself. To the outside observer it would seem that self-interest reigns supreme when it comes to security measures in, or around, the State Capitol.

As we all know, $6 million has been directed to make secure what was already an incredibly secure Capitol Complex. Instead, those funds could have gone to other law enforcement efforts to make the average South Carolinian across the state more secure. Most people don't work in a place that has its own police force, armed guards 24 hours a day, security cameras, and more. Nonetheless, this additional $6 million was spent over our objection - and in that process, security measures have moved forward erecting a variety of barriers, entrances, and screening devices and sensors.

In effect, the "People's House" has become something of a fortress both to mirror many of the security features found in Washington, D.C. - and to allegedly protect it from terrorist attack. There is obviously a glaring difference in the level of threat in Washington, D.C. versus Columbia, S.C. Our point is simply this: If we are going to spend the $6 million and if those kinds of security measures are going to be installed, it would make sense to live by the same rules that have been employed in the Capitol Complex in Washington wherein members are not in fact allowed to bring a weapon to work.

In short, our view is the same as it has been. Either cease and desist on what we think to be extraneous security measures where those dollars could be far better applied to helping average South Carolinians - and, in that case, let people bring guns to and from work in their car. Alternatively, if one is to insist on what we believe to be a waste of these $6 million, then live by the same rules that are in place in Washington where a member cannot bring a gun to the garage.

To be consistent in our objection, we will once again veto this bill because it further codifies the $6 million in security upgrades that we think to be unnecessary.

It is for this reason, I am vetoing S. 968, R. 346.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R346) S. 968 (Word version) -- Senators McGill, O'Dell, Williams and Knotts: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-405, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF "WEAPON" AND THE HANDLING OF WEAPONS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, SO AS TO REMOVE "KNIFE WITH A BLADE OVER TWO INCHES LONG" FROM THE DEFINITION; TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-460, RELATING TO CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXCLUSION OF KNIVES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE OFFENSE UNLESS THEY ARE USED WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME; TO AMEND SECTION 10-11-320, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL CARRYING OR DISCHARGING OF A FIREARM ON CAPITOL GROUNDS AND WITHIN THE CAPITOL BUILDING, SO AS TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FOR A PERSON WHO POSSESSES A CONCEALABLE WEAPONS PERMIT AND WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PARK ON THE CAPITOL GROUNDS OR THE GARAGE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

Rep. M. A. PITTS 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:

Allen                  Anderson               Anthony
Bales                  Bannister              Battle

Bedingfield            Bingham                Bowen
Brady                  Branham                Brantley
Breeland               G. Brown               Chalk
Clemmons               Cooper                 Cotty
Dantzler               Delleney               Erickson
Frye                   Gambrell               Govan
Gullick                Haley                  Hardwick
Harrell                Harrison               Hart
Hayes                  Herbkersman            Hiott
Hodges                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Hutson                 Jefferson
Jennings               Kelly                  Kirsh
Leach                  Limehouse              Loftis
Lowe                   Lucas                  Mahaffey
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Mitchell               Moss                   Mulvaney
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Perry
Phillips               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rice                   Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Sellers
Shoopman               Simrill                Skelton
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith            J. R. Smith            Spires
Stavrinakis            Stewart                Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Umphlett
Vick                   Viers                  Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Williams               Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

Agnew                  Ballentine             R. Brown
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Daning
Funderburk             Hagood                 Kennedy
Knight                 Parks                  Scott

The COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:

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.

Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:

That the same do pass with the following amendments:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting the following:

/   SECTION   1.   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

(3)   'DNA' means deoxyribonucleic acid.

(4)   'DNA profile' means the results of any testing performed on a DNA sample.

(5)   'DNA record' means the tissue or saliva samples and the results of the testing performed on the samples.

(6)   '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.

(7)   '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.

(8)   '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.

(9)   '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

(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

(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

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 willfully 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

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 profile 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 profile 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 record must be destroyed. Any previous profiles 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 must 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 records, 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)   Unless there is an act of gross negligence or intentional misconduct this article may not 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 this 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   2.   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.   (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)   'DNA profile' means the results of any testing performed on a DNA sample.

(5)   'DNA record' means the tissue or saliva samples and the results of the testing performed on the samples.

(6)   '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.

(7)   '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.

(8)   '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.

(9)   '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

(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.   Unless there is an act of gross negligence or intentional misconduct this article may not 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

SECTION   3.   A.     This SECTION may be referred to and cited as the "Unidentified Human Remains DNA Database Act".

B.     Article 9, Chapter 3, Title 23 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 23-3-625.   Family members of a missing person may submit DNA samples to the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED). If the person is missing thirty days after a missing person report has been submitted to the Missing Person Information Center, SLED must conduct DNA identification, typing, and testing on the family members' samples. SLED may, within its discretion, conduct DNA identification, typing, and testing on the family members' samples prior to thirty days if SLED determines that such DNA identification, typing, and testing is necessary. If SLED does not have the technology necessary for a particular method of DNA identification, typing, or testing, SLED may submit the DNA samples to a Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS) laboratory that has the appropriate technology. The results of the identification, typing, and testing must be entered into CODIS."

C.     Article 9, Chapter 3, Title 23 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 23-3-635.   Upon notification by the Medical University of South Carolina or other facility preserving the body of an unidentified person that the body remains unidentified after thirty days, the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) must conduct DNA identification, typing, and testing of the unidentified person's tissue and fluid samples provided to SLED pursuant to Section 17-7-25. SLED may, within its discretion, conduct DNA identification, typing, and testing of the unidentified person's tissue and fluid samples prior to thirty days if SLED determines that such DNA identification, typing, and testing is necessary. The results of the identification, typing, and testing must be entered into the Combined DNA Indexing System."

D.     Article 1, Chapter 7, Title 17 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 17-7-25.   A coroner performing an autopsy on an unidentified body must obtain tissue and fluid samples suitable for

E.     Section 17-5-570(B) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(B)   If the body cannot be identified through reasonable efforts, the coroner must forward the body to the Medical University of South Carolina or other suitable facility for preservation. The body must be preserved for not less than thirty days, unless the body is identified within that time. If the body remains unidentified thirty days after the coroner forwarded the body, the Medical University of South Carolina or other facility preserving the body must immediately notify the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED). If the body has not been identified at the end of that time within thirty days after SLED has entered the unidentified person's DNA profile into the Combined DNA Indexing System pursuant to Section 23-3-635, the Medical University may retain possession of the body for its use and benefit or return the body to the coroner of the county where death occurred for disposition as provided by law. A facility other than the Medical University utilized by the coroner for storage of an unidentified body may dispose of the body as provided by law or return the body to the coroner of the county where death occurred for disposition."

F.     This SECTION takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

SECTION   4.   A.   This SECTION may be cited as the "South Carolina Protection from Violence Against Women and Children Act".

B.     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."

C.     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

(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."

D.     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,

(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."

E.     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 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."

F.     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 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.

(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."

G.     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."

H.     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."

I.     This SECTION takes effect on January 1, 2009. However, the implementation of the procedures provided for in this SECTION is contingent upon the State Law Enforcement Division's receipt of funds necessary to implement these provisions. Until the provisions of this SECTION are fully funded and executed, implementation of the provisions of this SECTION shall not prohibit the collection and testing of DNA samples by the methods allowed prior to the implementation of this SECTION from persons convicted, adjudicated delinquent, or on probation or parole for those crimes listed in Section 23-3-620. Upon this SECTION 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.

SECTION   5.   The repeal or amendment by the provisions of this act 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   6.   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   7.   The provisions of Section 17-28-350 become effective upon the signature of the Governor. All other provisions become effective January 1, 2009. The enactment of these provisions prior to

Amend title to conform.

/s/Sen. Gerald Malloy             /s/Rep. G. Murrell Smith, Jr.
/s/Sen. John M. Knotts, Jr.       /s/Rep. Douglas Jennings, Jr.
Sen. Raymond E. Cleary III        /s/Rep. Kristopher R. Crawford
On Part of the Senate.            On Part of the House.

Rep. G. M. SMITH explained the Conference Report.

The Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Rep. CRAWFORD moved to reconsider the vote whereby the Conference Report on the following Bill 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. CRAWFORD moved to table the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

(R416, H3812 (Word version)) -- Reps. G.M. Smith, Weeks and Ceips: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 6-1-320, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LIMIT ON PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE INCREASES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A MILLAGE RATE LIMITATION TO PURCHASE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY NEAR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEAR THOSE MILITARY INSTALLATIONS, REQUIRE AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND ESTABLISH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN THE ORDINANCE, REQUIRE A MILLAGE INCREASE TO REASONABLY RELATE TO THE PURCHASE PRICE AND BE RESCINDED IN FIVE YEARS AFTER A CERTAIN TIME, PROHIBIT REINSTATEMENT OF THE MILLAGE RATE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY AND PROVIDE FOR PAYING FOR THE REFERENDUM; TO PROVIDE FOR A LIMIT ON PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE RATE LIMITATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, DEFINE "CAPITAL EQUIPMENT", AND PROVIDE FOR MAKING EXPENDITURES RELATED TO THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND PURCHASE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT IN A COUNTY HAVING A POPULATION OF LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PERSONS AND HAS AT LEAST FORTY THOUSAND ACRES OF STATE FOREST LAND.

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

(R385, H4470 (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: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 58-5-390 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITY MAY NOT IMPOSE A TAP FEE, RECURRING MAINTENANCE FEE, OR OTHER FEE, HOWEVER DESCRIBED FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM THAT EXCEEDS THE ACTUAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WATER LINE TO THE SYSTEM AND TO DEFINE ACTUAL COSTS; BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-3622 SO AS TO ALLOW A PROPERTY TAX CREDIT, AT THE OPTION OF THE PROPERTY-TAXING ENTITY FOR TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE COSTS OF INSTALLING A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN A COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WHEN SUCH INSTALLATION IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, TO ALLOW AN INCOME TAX CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT, TO PROVIDE THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE CREDITS ARE USED WHEN EARNED BY PASS-THROUGH ENTITIES, AND TO MAKE UNUSED CREDITS TRANSFERABLE BY THE STRUCTURE'S OWNER TO A TENANT; TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-3130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA REAL PROPERTY VALUATION REFORM ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE INSTALLATION OF A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN A COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WHEN THE INSTALLATION IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW IS NOT AN ADDITION OR IMPROVEMENT; BY ADDING SECTION 10-1-80 SO AS TO PROHIBIT ENFORCEMENT OF THAT PORTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE OR NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FIRE CODE THAT PROHIBITS THE USE OF NATURAL CUT TREES IN CELEBRATIONS IN HOUSES OF WORSHIP; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-220, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXEMPT THE VALUE OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 386, H. 4743 by a vote of 35 to 7:

(R386, H4743 (Word version)) -- Reps. Mitchell, Davenport, Littlejohn, W.D. Smith, Allen, Anthony, Cato, Hardwick, Harrell, Hosey, Kennedy, Lowe, Mack, Miller, Phillips, F.N. Smith, Talley, Young, Knight and Hodges: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 31-6-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN REGARD TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT FOR MUNICIPALITIES AND TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-30, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN REGARD TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT FOR COUNTIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE TERM "REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT" ALSO INCLUDES AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS WHERE ALL OR A PART OF NEW PROPERTY TAX REVENUES GENERATED IN THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ARE USED TO PROVIDE OR SUPPORT PUBLICLY-OWNED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT OR IS USED TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS TO SUPPORT PRIVATELY-OWNED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT; BY ADDING SECTION 6-11-175 SO AS TO REQUIRE A DISTRICT TO ADVERTISE AND HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING PRIOR TO BEGINNING A PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT, EXPAND, OR MATERIALLY ALTER A DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR THE DISTRIBUTION WATER OR A SYSTEM FOR THE COLLECTION

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 390, H. 4773 by a vote of 43 to 0:

(R390, H4773 (Word version)) -- Reps. W.D. Smith, Walker, Talley, Mahaffey, Moss, Anthony, Kelly, Littlejohn, Mitchell and Phillips: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION TO EXPEND UP TO EIGHT MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OF THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE UNDER SECTION 903 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ERECTING AND FURNISHING A BUILDING FOR USE BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, FOR FURNISHINGS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES FOR THE GAFFNEY AND UNION WORKFORCE CENTERS, EXPANDING THE LANCASTER WORKFORCE CENTER, IMPROVING THE SENECA WORKFORCE CENTER PARKING LOT, ASSISTING IN THE

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Conference on S. 429:

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.

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The Report of the Committee of Conference having been adopted by both Houses, and this Bill having been read three times in each House, it was ordered that the title thereof be changed to that of an Act and that it be enrolled for ratification.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 356, S. 1143 by a vote of 35 to 8:

(R356, S1143 (Word version)) -- Senators McConnell, Martin, Alexander, Hayes, Hutto, Ceips, Peeler, Leventis, Rankin, Setzler, Knotts and Malloy: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE SALES TAX, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED FOR NONCOMMERCIAL HOME OR PERSONAL USE WITH A SALES PRICE OF TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER PRODUCT OR LESS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SALES TAX UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DURATION OF THE EXEMPTION AND ITS APPLICABILITY DURING A PARTICULAR FISCAL YEAR BASED ON REVENUE FORECASTS; TO ENACT THE "SECOND AMENDMENT RECOGNITION ACT" BY AMENDING SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE SALES TAX, SO AS TO EXEMPT THE SALES OF HANDGUNS, RIFLES, AND SHOTGUNS DURING A SPECIFIED FORTY-EIGHT HOUR WEEKEND PERIOD; AND BY ADDING SECTION 12-28-340 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT REGARDLESS OF OTHER PRODUCTS OFFERED, CERTAIN MOTOR FUEL TERMINALS LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE MUST OFFER A PETROLEUM PRODUCT THAT HAS NOT BEEN BLENDED WITH ETHANOL AND THAT IS SUITABLE FOR SUBSEQUENT BLENDING WITH ETHANOL, TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON OR ENTITY MUST NOT TAKE ANY ACTION TO DENY A MOTOR FUEL DISTRIBUTOR OR MOTOR FUEL RETAILER WHO IS DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE AND WHO HAS REGISTERED WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ON FORM 637(M) FROM BEING THE BLENDER OF RECORD AFFORDED THEM BY THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF FORM 637(M); AND TO PROVIDE THAT A DISTRIBUTOR OR

Very respectfully,
President

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

June 11, 2008
The Honorable André Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, First Floor, East Wing
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

I am hereby vetoing S. 1143 (Word version), R. 356. S. 1143 does the following three things: (1) creates a month-long sales tax holiday for the purchase of energy-efficient products; (2) creates a two-day sales tax holiday for the purchase of firearms; and (3) requires all gasoline suppliers to provide raw gasoline to retailers and distributors so that they can "splash blend" ethanol.

First, while we support the intent underlying sales tax holidays, we are vetoing this bill because we don't believe that sales tax holidays are an effective method of promoting energy efficiency or the Second Amendment. While we certainly support consumers purchasing energy-efficient products and firearms, we believe the best way to do that is to create a low-tax, consumer-friendly environment on a permanent basis. Several studies have shown that providing a temporary sales tax holiday does not have a significant impact on consumer demand for products and, by extension, the economy because it only affects the timing of a purchase. In short, we ought to be permanently lowering taxes and then leaving it to the individual to decide how and when to spend their money.

Second, we are vetoing this bill because the "splash blending" provisions of S. 1143 permanently entangle a misguided federal ethanol policy with state law. This bill requires that gasoline suppliers offer retailers and distributors raw gasoline that can be blended with ethanol and prohibits gas suppliers from denying retailers and distributors the opportunity to blend raw gasoline and ethanol on their own. Thus, gas suppliers would be prohibited from selling only

While we understand that local retailers and distributors want to preserve the opportunity to obtain blending tax credits, we don't believe it is wise to further support federal ethanol policies that have been proven ineffective and, in many ways, counterproductive. It is well documented that increasing ethanol production and consumption has not and likely will not lower gas prices or increase the nation's energy independence. Moreover, ethanol usage in its current form is not the environmentally-friendly alternative that many suggest it is. In fact, one recent study conducted by MIT showed that, on a life-cycle basis, gasoline and ethanol produce roughly the same amount of greenhouse gases. The federal policy of subsidizing and mandating ethanol production has caused food prices to rise and increased the amount of land devoted to farming, which often has damaging consequences to the environment.

As every day passes, there seems to be more evidence indicating that the federal ethanol policy is a bad idea and needs to be abandoned. The debacle of the federal government's ethanol policy is so bad that even the New York Times has stated in a recent editorial that "[i]t is time to end an outdated tax break for corn ethanol and to call a timeout in the fivefold increase in ethanol production mandated in the 2007 energy bill." It is time to remove our heads from the sand about ethanol and ensure that our laws do not reflect this flawed premise that ethanol will solve our current energy crisis.

Third, we are also concerned that providing preference to local retailers and distributors over the out-of-state suppliers could be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because this preference discriminates against interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause prevents states from regulating commerce in a manner that prefers in-state interests over out-of-state interests. In fact, the Supreme Court stated in Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority that while "a State may seek lower prices

Fourth, even if we did not have these concerns about the blending provisions in S. 1143, we would veto this bill because it was added through the unconstitutional practice of bobtailing. This administration has consistently vetoed legislation which violates Article III, Section 17, of the South Carolina Constitution, which provides that "every Act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." S. 1143 clearly violates this mandate and would undoubtedly be held to be unconstitutional by our Supreme Court.

S. 1143 was introduced by Senator McConnell with the title reflecting a single subject of the sales tax holiday for energy efficient products. The title of S. 1143 remained unchanged throughout the legislative process. The Senate passed the bill with this title intact and the bill related only to the single subject stated in the title. The House amended S. 1143 by adding a section that provided for an exemption from sales tax holiday for firearms. While this broadened the bill, the amendment remained related to sales tax holidays. Thus, as passed by the House the bill would very likely pass constitutional muster. However, when the bill was returned to the Senate, the bill was amended to include the ethanol blending provisions. This amendment is totally unrelated to the other provisions of the bill and, therefore, not within the "single subject" of the title.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has most recently addressed the "single subject" or "bobtail" issue in Sloan v. Wilkins. Citing numerous prior cases, the Court said that the "purpose of Article III, Section 17 is (1) to apprise the members of the General Assembly of the contents of an act by reading the title, (2) prevent legislative log-rolling and (3) inform the people of the state of the matters with which the General Assembly concerns itself."

The ethanol blending amendment violates all three purposes the Supreme Court established because it was never introduced as a separate bill nor discussed as an amendment in any subcommittee or committee of the General Assembly. Thus, the deliberative process that is supposedly the hallmark of the legislative process was by-passed

This constitutional infirmity was recognized by Senator McConnell, the author of the original bill. When the ethanol blending amendment was brought up on the Senate floor, he stated that it was unconstitutional and announced he wanted to be recorded as voting against it. While Senator McConnell and I do not always agree, we are in agreement that this measure is unconstitutional.

For these reasons, we are vetoing S. 1143, R. 356.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R356) S. 1143 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Martin, Alexander, Hayes, Hutto, Ceips, Peeler, Leventis, Rankin, Setzler, Knotts and Malloy: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE SALES TAX, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED FOR NONCOMMERCIAL HOME OR PERSONAL USE WITH A SALES PRICE OF TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER PRODUCT OR LESS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SALES TAX UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DURATION OF THE EXEMPTION AND ITS APPLICABILITY DURING A PARTICULAR FISCAL YEAR BASED ON REVENUE FORECASTS; TO ENACT THE "SECOND AMENDMENT RECOGNITION ACT" BY AMENDING SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE SALES TAX, SO AS TO EXEMPT THE SALES OF HANDGUNS, RIFLES, AND SHOTGUNS DURING A SPECIFIED FORTY-EIGHT HOUR WEEKEND PERIOD; AND BY ADDING SECTION 12-28-340 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT REGARDLESS OF OTHER PRODUCTS OFFERED, CERTAIN MOTOR FUEL TERMINALS LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE MUST OFFER A PETROLEUM PRODUCT THAT HAS NOT BEEN BLENDED WITH ETHANOL AND THAT IS SUITABLE FOR SUBSEQUENT BLENDING WITH ETHANOL, TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON OR ENTITY MUST NOT TAKE

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                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Bannister
Bedingfield            Bingham                Bowen
Brady                  Branham                Brantley
Breeland               G. Brown               Chalk
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Dantzler
Delleney               Edge                   Erickson
Frye                   Funderburk             Gambrell
Govan                  Gullick                Haley
Hardwick               Harrell                Harrison
Hart                   Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Huggins                Hutson
Jefferson              Jennings               Kennedy
Kirsh                  Knight                 Leach
Loftis                 Lowe                   Lucas
Mahaffey               McLeod                 Miller
Mitchell               Moss                   Mulvaney
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Phillips
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Rice                   Rutherford             Sandifer

Scott                  Sellers                Shoopman
Simrill                Skelton                F. N. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            Spires
Stewart                Taylor                 Thompson
Toole                  Umphlett               Vick
Viers                  Walker                 Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Williams               Witherspoon

Those who voted in the negative are:

Battle                 Cotty                  Daning
Hagood                 Kelly                  Merrill
G. M. Smith            J. E. Smith            Stavrinakis

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

The SPEAKER announced that Rep. COOPER replaced Rep. LITTLEJOHN on the Conference Committee on the following Bill:

H. 4355 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Kirsh, Bales, Lowe, E. H. Pitts, Cotty, Mahaffey, Battle and Crawford: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 310 OF 2008, THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE FUND IN THE STATE TREASURY TO WHICH MUST BE CREDITED STATE AGENCY HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM SAVINGS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MONIES CREDITED TO THIS SEPARATE FUND ARE APPROPRIATED AND MUST BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE TREASURER TO THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION FOR EXPENSES OF THE 2008 GENERAL ELECTION UP TO THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED WITH THE BALANCE TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR SCHOOL BUS FUEL AND PARTS.

Rep. COOPER moved that the Committee of Conference on the following Bill be resolved into a Committee of Free Conference and briefly explained the Conference Committee's reasons for this request:

H. 4355 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Kirsh, Bales, Lowe, E. H. Pitts, Cotty, Mahaffey, Battle and Crawford: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 310 OF 2008, THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE FUND IN THE STATE TREASURY TO WHICH MUST BE CREDITED STATE AGENCY HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM SAVINGS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MONIES CREDITED TO THIS SEPARATE FUND ARE APPROPRIATED AND MUST BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE TREASURER TO THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION FOR EXPENSES OF THE 2008 GENERAL ELECTION UP TO THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED WITH THE BALANCE TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR SCHOOL BUS FUEL AND PARTS.

Rep. COOPER demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken, resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Bales
Ballentine             Bannister              Battle
Bedingfield            Bingham                Bowen
Brady                  Branham                Breeland
Chalk                  Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Cooper                 Cotty
Crawford               Daning                 Delleney
Edge                   Erickson               Frye
Funderburk             Gambrell               Govan
Gullick                Hagood                 Haley
Hardwick               Harrell                Harrison
Hart                   Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Hutson                 Jefferson              Jennings

Kelly                  Kirsh                  Knight
Leach                  Limehouse              Loftis
Lowe                   Lucas                  Mahaffey
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Mitchell               Moss                   Mulvaney
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Perry                  Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Rice
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
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Umphlett               Vick                   Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Williams
Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

So, the motion to resolve the Committee of Conference into a Committee of Free Conference was agreed to.

The Committee of Conference was thereby resolved into a Committee of Free Conference. The SPEAKER appointed Reps. COOPER, LIMEHOUSE and KIRSH to the Committee of Free Conference and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
H. 4355 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Kirsh, Bales, Lowe, E.H. Pitts, Cotty, Mahaffey, Battle and Crawford: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 4-10-20, 4-10-350, 4-10-580, AND 4-37-30, ALL AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX, THE CAPITAL PROJECT SALES TAX, THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION SALES TAX, AND THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE SALES TAX, SO AS TO EXEMPT FROM THESE TAXES UNPREPARED FOOD ITEMS ELIGIBLE FOR PURCHASE WITH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD COUPONS AND MAKE THIS EXEMPTION APPLY PROSPECTIVELY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO ALLOW A COUNTY GOVERNING BOARD BY ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE STATE SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR FOOD ITEMS TO A LOCALLY IMPOSED SALES AND USE TAX.

Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:

That the same do pass with the following amendments:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/   SECTION   1.   Section 80C.5, Part IB of Act 310 of 2008, is amended by adding a new paragraph at the end to read:

"Each state agency, as so classified by the Employee Insurance Program for purposes of providing health insurance, by September 30, 2008, shall remit the amount of premium savings as determined by the Employee Insurance Program to the State Treasurer for deposit in a fund separate and distinct from the general fund of the State and all other funds, which is hereby established within the State Treasury. Each state agency is authorized to use funds from any revenue source except federal funds for this payment. By this paragraph, these remittances are deemed to have occurred and are available for

Amend title to read:
/A BILL TO AMEND ACT 310 OF 2008, THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE FUND IN THE STATE TREASURY TO WHICH MUST BE CREDITED STATE AGENCY HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM SAVINGS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MONIES CREDITED TO THIS SEPARATE FUND ARE APPROPRIATED AND MUST BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE TREASURER TO THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION FOR EXPENSES OF THE 2008 GENERAL ELECTION UP TO THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED WITH THE BALANCE TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR SCHOOL BUS FUEL AND PARTS. /

Senator John C. Land III          Rep. Daniel T. Cooper
Senator William H. O'Dell         Rep. Harry B. Limehouse III
Senator Robert W. Hayes, Jr.      Rep. Herb Kirsh
On Part of the Senate.               On Part of the House.

Rep. COOPER explained the Free Conference Report.

Rep. OTT spoke in favor of the Free Conference Report.

The Free Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 392, H. 4815 by a vote of 29 to 9:

(R392, H4815 (Word version)) -- Reps. Harrell, Merrill, Thompson, Brady, Stavrinakis, Haley, Ballentine, Cato, Cooper, Delleney, Harrison, Limehouse, Sandifer, Scarborough, Shoopman, Taylor, Viers, Walker, Young, Mahaffey, Neilson, Bales, R. Brown, Herbkersman, Edge, Bingham, Simrill, Whipper, Bedingfield and Bowers: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1-30-25, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND SECTION 1-30-80, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION AND TOURISM, SO AS TO MOVE THE SOUTH CAROLINA FILM COMMISSION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION AND TOURISM AND PROVIDE TRANSITION PROVISIONS; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 62 OF TITLE 12, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA MOTION PICTURE INCENTIVE ACT, SO AS TO MAKE CONFORMING AMENDMENTS REFLECTING THE TRANSFER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA FILM COMMISSION.

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has sustained the Veto by the Governor on R. 427, H. 4950 by a vote of 0 to 43:

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 421, H. 4554 by a vote of 43 to 0:

(R421, H4554 (Word version)) -- Reps. Cobb-Hunter and Bedingfield: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 6-1-315, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LIMITATION ON THE IMPOSITION OR INCREASE OF A BUSINESS LICENSE TAX, SO AS TO LIMIT THE IMPOSITION OF A LICENSE, OCCUPATION, OR PROFESSIONAL TAX OR FEE UPON REAL ESTATE LICENSEES, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAX OR FEE SHALL PERMIT THE BROKER-IN-CHARGE AND THE BROKER'S AFFILIATED ASSOCIATE BROKERS, SALESPERSONS, AND PROPERTY MANAGERS TO ENGAGE IN ALL OF THE BROKERAGE ACTIVITY DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 57 OF TITLE 40 WITHOUT FURTHER LICENSING OR TAXING OTHER THAN STATE LICENSES, TO PROHIBIT THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE, OCCUPATION, OR PROFESSIONAL TAX OR FEE ON CERTAIN REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS FOR GROSS RECEIPTS UPON WHICH A TAX OR FEE HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID, TO PROVIDE THAT BROKERED TRANSACTIONS OR REAL PROPERTY IN

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 398, H. 5012 by a vote of 43 to 0:

(R398, H5012 (Word version)) -- Rep. Chalk: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-33-25 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION MAY REQUIRE STATE AND NATIONAL CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECKS OF AN APPLICANT FOR LICENSURE TO PRACTICE NURSING, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY REQUIRE SUCH CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECKS IN CONNECTION WITH AN INVESTIGATION OR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING OF A LICENSEE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT WRITING A DISHONORED CHECK IS NOT EVIDENCE OF MORAL TURPITUDE FOR PURPOSES OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION OR DISQUALIFICATION FOR LICENSURE IF PROSECUTION OF THE OFFENSE WAS DISMISSED DUE TO PROOF OF PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION; AND BY ADDING SECTION 40-33-39 SO AS TO REQUIRE A LICENSED NURSE TO WEAR AN IDENTIFICATION BADGE BEARING THE NURSE'S FIRST OR LAST NAME, OR BOTH, AND TITLE.

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

The Senate respectfully invites your Honorable Body to attend in the Senate Chamber today at a mutually convenient time for the purpose of ratifying Acts.

Very respectfully,
President

On motion of Rep. LOWE the invitation was accepted.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 382, H. 4339 by a vote of 43 to 0:

(R382, H4339 (Word version)) -- Reps. Cooper, Clyburn, Battle, Haskins, Harrison, Hosey, Cotty, Walker and Bales: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 9-10-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO BECOMES A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AFTER JUNE 30, 1993, IF OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE, ALSO MAY RECEIVE ADDITIONAL NATIONAL GUARD RETIREMENT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THE STATE NATIONAL GUARD RETIREMENT SYSTEM UNDER CHAPTER 10 OF TITLE 9 AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION APPLY TO NATIONAL GUARD PENSION BENEFITS PAYABLE ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007.

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 417, H. 3912 by a vote of 34 to 5:

(R417, H3912 (Word version)) -- Reps. White and Bales: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-30, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT TO BE LICENSED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE AND TO SPECIFY WHAT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS PRACTICING MEDICINE, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT A PHYSICIAN MAY DELEGATE CERTAIN TASKS TO AN UNLICENSED PERSON IF THE PHYSICIAN IS IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE AND TO PROVIDE THAT A PHYSICIAN IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM PRACTICING IN CONSULTATION WITH A SOUTH CAROLINA PHYSICIAN CONCERNING AN OPINION FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA PHYSICIAN'S CONSIDERATION IN MANAGING THE CASE AND TREATMENT OF A PATIENT IN THIS STATE; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-32, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN PROVIDING DOCUMENTATION OF RESIDENCY TRAINING FOR LICENSURE, A PHYSICIAN WHO GRADUATED FROM A SCHOOL OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES OR CANADA IS ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY LICENSED FOR THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS, RATHER THAN THE PRECEDING TEN YEARS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION MUST BE IN A BOARD CERTIFIED APPLICANT'S AREA OF SPECIALTY IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN LICENSURE WITHOUT HAVING TO PASS AN EXAMINATION; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF TERMS IN THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF PHYSICIANS, INCLUDING THE DEFINITION OF THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT RENDERING A DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL NECESSITY OR A DECISION AFFECTING THE DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT OF A PATIENT IS NOT, UNDER

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 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. 395, H. 4982 by a vote of 1 to 0:

(R395, H4982 (Word version)) -- Rep. Hayes: AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY OF MILLAGE FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES IN DILLON COUNTY AND TO PROVIDE FOR ITS ALLOCATION FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES.

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following Concurrent Resolution was introduced and taken up for immediate consideration:

S. 1469 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell and Martin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III,

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:

(A)   Pursuant to the provisions of Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution of this State, Section 2-1-180 of the 1976 Code, and the provisions of S. 838, the Sine Die adjournment date for the General Assembly for the 2008 session is recognized and extended to permit the General Assembly to continue in session after Friday June 27, 2008, under the terms and conditions stipulated in this resolution and for this purpose each house agrees that when the Senate and the House of Representatives adjourn on Friday, June 27, 2008, not later than 5:00 p.m. or at anytime prior, each house shall stand adjourned to meet in statewide session at a date and time mutually agreed upon by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, if (1) the fiscal conditions described in Section 11-9-890 are met at the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2008-2009, or (2) any acts ratified pursuant to the terms of S. 838 or this resolution are vetoed by the Governor. Further, each house agrees to limit itself to consideration of the following matters and subject to the following conditions, as applicable:

(1)   receipt and consideration of legislation necessary to address any shortfall in revenue meeting the conditions of Section 11-9-890;

(2)   receipt and consideration of gubernatorial vetoes; and

(3)   receipt and consideration of resolutions affecting the Sine Die adjournment date.

(B)   The President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives may set a mutually agreed upon time prior to Sine Die adjournment for officers of the Senate and House to ratify acts.

(C)   Unless adjourned earlier, the General Assembly shall stand adjourned Sine Die no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 31, 2008.

Rep. HARRELL explained the Concurrent Resolution.

Rep. HARRELL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken, resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Bales
Bannister              Bedingfield            Bingham
Bowen                  Brady                  Branham
Breeland               Chalk                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Cooper
Cotty                  Crawford               Daning
Delleney               Edge                   Erickson
Frye                   Funderburk             Gambrell
Govan                  Gullick                Hagood
Haley                  Hardwick               Harrell
Harrison               Haskins                Hayes
Herbkersman            Hiott                  Hodges
Howard                 Huggins                Hutson
Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly
Kirsh                  Knight                 Leach
Limehouse              Loftis                 Lowe
Lucas                  Mahaffey               McLeod
Merrill                Mitchell               Moss
Mulvaney               J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rice                   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                Taylor
Thompson               Toole                  Umphlett
Vick                   Viers                  Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Williams               Witherspoon            Young

Those who voted in the negative are:

So, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted and sent to the Senate.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has requested and has granted free conference powers and appointed Senators Land, O'Dell and Hayes of the Committee of Free Conference on the part of the Senate on H. 4355:

H. 4355 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Kirsh, Bales, Lowe, E. H. Pitts, Cotty, Mahaffey, Battle and Crawford: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 310 OF 2008, THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE FUND IN THE STATE TREASURY TO WHICH MUST BE CREDITED STATE AGENCY HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM SAVINGS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MONIES CREDITED TO THIS SEPARATE FUND ARE APPROPRIATED AND MUST BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE TREASURER TO THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION FOR EXPENSES OF THE 2008 GENERAL ELECTION UP TO THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED WITH THE BALANCE TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR SCHOOL BUS FUEL AND PARTS.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Free Conference on H. 4355:

H. 4355 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Kirsh, Bales, Lowe, E. H. Pitts, Cotty, Mahaffey, Battle and Crawford: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 310 OF 2008, THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE FUND IN THE STATE TREASURY TO WHICH MUST BE CREDITED STATE AGENCY HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM SAVINGS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MONIES CREDITED TO THIS SEPARATE FUND ARE APPROPRIATED AND MUST BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE TREASURER TO THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION FOR EXPENSES OF THE 2008 GENERAL ELECTION UP TO THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED WITH THE BALANCE TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR SCHOOL BUS FUEL AND PARTS.

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

The following was received:

Columbia, S.C., June 25, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that the Report of the Committee of Free Conference on the following Bill, having been adopted by both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and the Act enrolled for ratification:

Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.

At 7:00 p.m. the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Acts were duly ratified:

(R429, S. 429 (Word version)) -- Senators Malloy and Jackson: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 28 TO TITLE 17 SO AS TO ENACT THE "ACCESS TO JUSTICE POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING ACT", TO DEFINE NECESSARY TERMS, PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING, PROVIDE A MANNER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, PROVIDE THE METHOD OF DISCLOSING THE RESULTS OF DNA TESTING, PROVIDE IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY UNLESS THERE IS AN ACT OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT, AND PROVIDE LIMITS ON EXPENDITURES IN ONE YEAR TO ADMINISTER THE ACT; BY ADDING ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 28 TO TITLE 17 SO AS TO ENACT THE "PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE ACT", TO DEFINE NECESSARY TERMS, PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE, DELINEATE THE OFFENSES

(R430, H. 4355 (Word version)) -- Reps. Harrell, Kirsh, Bales, Lowe, E.H. Pitts, Cotty, Mahaffey, Battle and Crawford: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 310 OF 2008, THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE FUND IN THE STATE TREASURY TO WHICH MUST BE CREDITED STATE AGENCY HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM SAVINGS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MONIES CREDITED TO THIS SEPARATE FUND ARE APPROPRIATED AND MUST BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE TREASURER TO THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION FOR EXPENSES OF THE 2008 GENERAL ELECTION UP TO THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED WITH THE BALANCE TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR SCHOOL BUS FUEL AND PARTS.

Rep. LEACH moved that the House do now adjourn, which was agreed to.

The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:

H. 5291 (Word version) -- Reps. Scott, Bales, Ballentine, Brady, Cotty, Harrison, Hart, Howard, J. H. Neal, Rutherford and J. E. Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE HONORABLE KAY PATTERSON OF RICHLAND COUNTY FOR HIS MORE THAN THIRTY-FOUR YEARS OF FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF RICHLAND COUNTY AND THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO WISH HIM HAPPINESS AND FULFILLMENT IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

At 7:08 p.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. HARRISON, adjourned in accordance with S. 1469, the Sine Die Resolution, in memory of Matthew Bruccoli of Columbia.

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 22, 2009 at 12:04 P.M.