Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 1:00 p.m.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by The Very Reverend Timothy Jones, Dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, as follows:
Lord, You have said through the prophet Isaiah that heaven is Your throne and the earth is your footstool. Your glory in in all of the world, and Your presence in every place.
Help us to remember that while You are majestic and immense, You draw close to those who seek You. Help us to remember that while these are momentous times in which we live, You work in the little moments, the sometimes tedious hours. Help us to remember that while You give us a passion and urgency, Your vast purposes may sometimes surprise us. Help us to remember that while You give us words to speak and skills to persuade, You sometimes call us to be eloquent listeners, patient and alert to the convictions of others.
Give us a love of righteousness and truth. Make us mindful of our calling to serve others. Give us wisdom to know Your will and the strength to do it. We who long to serve You this day offer ourselves to Your will and Your eternal ways, as we commend this State to Your merciful care. We pray in and through Your holy name. 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 Tuesday, June 23, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
Rep. WEEKS moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Reginald D. English of Sumter, which was agreed to.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
June 29, 2015
The Honorable James H. Lucas
Speaker of the House of Representatives
South Carolina Statehouse, Second Floor
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Speaker Lucas and Members of the House of Representatives,
I am vetoing and returning without my approval certain line items in R. 127, H. 3701 (Word version), the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriation Act.
Although veto messages tend to highlight differences between a governor and the General Assembly, I believe this budget and this message really focus on the challenges and opportunities we have tackled this year as a state. In years past, we have focused on education, the administration of government, and economic development as the matters most pressing to us.
This year, we have been faced with many other issues; those of family welfare and domestic violence and of improving the public trust with law enforcement agencies. This budget contains some responses to those challenges and others with funding for body cameras, increased support for social services and victims of domestic violence, a continued commitment to mental health and substance abuse, and new investments in education.
However, the underlying principles of fiscal responsibility have also been challenged repeatedly this year. We have been challenged to invest in our state's infrastructure while avoiding the easy, but expensive, answer of tax increases. We have been challenged to have a frank conversation about the responsible use of our state's credit and the need to issue debt wisely and only for those investments with real returns to the people of South Carolina. Finally, we have been challenged to maintain a transparent and open budget process - one that does not use surpluses to grow government, but rather provides for the core functions of government and taxpayer relief.
The budget sent to my desk contains far too many earmarks for local pork and marketing, private nonprofits, and legislative pet projects. Today, I have vetoed dozens of such earmarks, and I hope that the political courage necessary to protect South Carolina's taxpayers takes precedence over political deal making to protect individual special interests.
On a positive front, we should all be proud of some of the changes and additions we have seen in this year's budget. The Department of Administration begins operating on July 1, 2015, and is the result of over a decade of work to modernize South Carolina's government. Finally, this budget keeps the Department of Transportation in the executive branch for one additional year, avoiding a return to legislative control as we seek more accountability when fixing South Carolina's roads and bridges.
The coming year is full of opportunity to address the pressing needs of our constituents and our state as a whole. I look forward to working with you to make the best of all of them.
I. Part IA - Funding
Prioritizing the Core Functions of Government
Veto 1 Part IA, Page 149, Section 49, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; I. Administration; B. Administrative Services; Aid to Subdivisions - Allocations to Municipalities-Restricted, $1,806,000 Total Funds, $500,000 General Funds
Veto 2 Part IA, Page 149, Section 49, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; I. Administration; B. Administrative Services; Aid to Subdivisions - Allocations to Counties-Restricted, $1,514,500 Total Funds, $500,000 General Funds
Veto 3 Part IA, Page 150, Section 49, Department of Parks, Recreation and Programs and Services; A. Tourism Sales and Marketing; Special Items - Sports Marketing Grant Program, $500,000 General Funds
As passed, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations act contains more than $5.3 million for marketing and advertising at the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism in addition to $500,000 to augment the Department's park grants programs. The Fiscal Year 2015-16 Executive Budget recommended $1.4 million for infrastructure needs in South Carolina state parks, which allows the Department to keep our state parks operationally self-sufficient, in stark contrast to this year's appropriations for the Department, which are almost entirely for marketing and local pork projects. In a year where the State has identified critical needs in transportation, law enforcement transparency, and social services, such excessive funding for an already robust tourism marketing budget is simply irresponsible.
Last year, the General Assembly agreed with this approach, sustaining my veto of the Undiscovered South Carolina program. Even with these vetoes, and others in Part IB, the Department will retain over $3 million in new recurring appropriations to support regional tourism efforts and statewide marketing - a 12.4% increase to the combined programs.
Veto 4 Part IA, Page 80, Section 29, State Museum Commission; II. Programs; New Positions - Program Coordinator I, $35,000 General Funds
Veto 5 Part IA, Page 80, Section 29, State Museum commission; II. Programs; New Positions - Program Coordinator II, $40,000 General Funds
The State Museum is one of South Carolina's unique agencies that receives significant state funding but also has a business model that requires it to find private-sector support through museum memberships, private donations, and special events. This year I recommended, and the General Assembly provided, capital funds for improved physical security at the State Museum, and the Department of Administration will continue to provide support to the Mills Building that houses the State Museum. Although I have been supportive of the Museum's physical infrastructure, I am vetoing these positions as I believe this year's programmatic expansion should be funded through earned revenue and not entirely subsidized by the taxpayers.
Veto 6 Part 1A, Page 36, Section 14, Clemson University (Education & General); I. Education & General; A. Unrestricted; New Positions - ENG/ASSOC ENG IV, $279,850 General Funds
Veto 7 Part IA, Page 36, Section 14, Clemson University (Education & General); I. Education & General; A. Unrestricted; New Positions - Professor, $748,000 General Funds
Veto 8 Part IA, Page 36, Section 14, Clemson University (Education & General); I. Education & General; A. Unrestricted; New Positions - Research Associate, $187,000 General Funds
Veto 9 Part IA, Page 137, Section 45, Clemson University (Public Service Activities); IV. Cooperative Extension Service; New Positions - GIS Analyst, $40,000 General Funds
Veto 10 Part IA, Page 137, Section 45, Clemson University (Public Service Activities); IV. Cooperative Extension Service; New Positions - Program Assistant, $35,000 General Funds
Veto 11 Part IA, Page 137, Section 45, Clemson University (Public Service Activities); IV. Cooperative Extension Service; New Positions - Program Manager I, $50,000 General Funds
Veto 12 Part IA, Page 138, Section 45, Clemson University (Public Service Activities); IV. Cooperative Extension Service; New Positions - Extension Associates, $200,000 General Funds
Veto 13 Part IA, Page 138, Section 45, Clemson University (Public Service Activities); IV. Cooperative Extension Service; New Positions - Extension Agent, $600,000 General Funds
I have vetoed the new positions for Clemson University and its related Public Service Authority, because these expenditures are excessive when combined with the University's capital items and do not focus on core instructional quality. I believe the basis of our state's investment in higher education should be in an accountable system of education focused on technical certification and associate and baccalaureate degrees that prepare our citizens for the modern workforce.
In this budget and related appropriations bills, Clemson University receives $6.5 million for capital expenditures, including $5 million for the further development of a Business School Building and $1.5 million for Clemson Public Service Authority facilities, both of which will become law even if this veto is sustained.
Veto 14 Part IA, Page 1, Section 1, Department of Education; IV. Accountability; A. Operations; New Positions - Education Associate, $130,000 General Funds
Veto 15 Part IA, Page 1, Section 1, Department of Education; IV. Accountability; A. Operations; New Positions - DPTY/Division Director, $119,000 General Funds
Veto 16 Part IA, Page 2, Section 1, Department of Education; VIII. School Effectiveness; New Positions - Education Associate, $175,000 General Funds
Veto 17 Part IA, Page 2, Section 1, Department of Education; VIII. School Effectiveness; New Positions - Administrative Assistant, $38,000 General Funds
Veto 18 Part IA, Page 2, Section 1, Department of Education; VIII. School Effectiveness; New Positions - Program Manager I, $155,000 General Funds
Veto 19 Part IA, Page 2, Section 1, Department of Education; VIII. School Effectiveness; Personal Service - Program Coordinator I, $95,000
South Carolina has seen resurgence in education investments over the past several years, and I am pleased to have a partner leading the Department of Education who is focused on improving educational outcomes for children across this state. It is for this reason that I support the creation and expansion of several literacy, educator compensation, school choice, and technology programs in this budget.
Although I have been supportive of programmatic support for students, this budget adds a dozen new positions to our state's education administration. I believe that the four teaching positions made available will provide Superintendent Spearman with the support she needs to implement Read to Succeed and evaluate the various literacy programs authorized by this budget as required by Proviso 1.93. However, I am vetoing these new positions as I believe the additional resources that remain in this budget are enough to continue the recent progress we have made, together, in educating our children.
II. Part IB - Temporary Funding
Veto 20 Part IB, Page 372, Section 33, Department of Health and Human Services - Proviso 33.30, Healthcare Workforce Analysis
This proviso steals $200,000 from the Department of Health and Human Service's reserves and sends it to a different state agency - the Area Health Education Consortium (AHEC). If the General Assembly wants to fund AHEC, then it should be placed on the line as requested by AHEC, not raided from our Medicaid program.
Veto 21 Part IA, Page 9, Section 1, Department of Education; XII. Education Improvement Act; F.Partnerships; 2. Other Agencies and Entities; District Subdivisions - Arts Curricula, $1,000,000 Total Funds
Over the course of my administration, I have repeatedly expressed support for expanding arts curricula through our public and charter schools. Unfortunately, this earmark does not provide direct support for arts education through the Department of Education; it is a pass-through to an arts bureaucracy. If we want to send money for arts education to our schools, we should do that and do so directly.
Veto 22 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 43(c) Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Wind and Seismic Residential Building Requirements Study, $40,000
Veto 23 Part IB, Page 431, Section 81, Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation - Proviso 81.14, Wind and Structural Engineering Research Lab
These two provisos, in conjunction, direct funding to the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (LLR) to contract with The Citadel to conduct a study of South Carolina's building codes. While I do not object to a robust analysis of South Carolina's building regulations for the safety of our citizens and success of our vibrant homebuilding industry, this appropriation is nothing more than an earmark for The Citadel; LLR should have the ability to openly and independently procure its own vendor.
Veto 24 Part IB, Page 515, Section 117, General Provisions - Proviso 117.131, Energy Efficiency Repair and Related Maintenance
Proviso 118.16(B)(56) of the Fiscal Year 2014-15 General Appropriations Act established a committee to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of our state's institutions of higher education as a precursor to determining the needs and challenges of each. Ultimately, this committee was unable to determine an effective course of action and failed to produce a viable set of recommendations for policy makers to use when determining the adequate scope and quantity of funding that is appropriate for South Carolina's colleges and universities.
This proviso takes the carry-forward funds originally intended to procure external evaluators for individual university reviews and doles them out as earmarks for small energy efficiency projects. Given that the committee's funds were never used for their original purpose, the funds should lapse to the General Fund and be appropriated based on the needs of our state, not used as small rewards for colleges and universities that still have not identified areas for individual improvement to state policymakers.
Veto 25 Part IB, Page 522, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 10(a) Commission on Higher Education, University Center of Greenville, $250,000
The University Center of Greenville is governed by a consortium of public and private colleges and universities that are working together to expand access to higher education for students in the Upstate. I respect this goal but note that these intuitions each receive state support through direct appropriations, the Education Lottery, Higher Education Tuition Grants program, or various other state sources. Furthermore, the University is receiving nearly $1.1 million in direct subsidies through this budget.
I am vetoing this additional $250,000, because it is unreasonable to expect taxpayers across the state to shoulder an additional burden on behalf of the relatively small number of students who attend courses through this Center. If this facility truly needs another $250,000 to operate, then participating institutions should make the required contributions.
Veto 26 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (42)(f) Department of Commerce - IT-ology - Coursepower Project, $200,000
The CoursePower initiative was originally developed in FY 2013-14 to provide a six-hour applied minor in Applied Computing at four colleges and universities without state support. This earmark was added in last year's budget, and it appears as though IT-ology has become a recurring appropriation.
I am pleased to see that the partner institutions are collaborating to promote education in the high-tech field, but I believe they should share the burden among themselves or with the students who are enrolled in these courses, instead of seeking a state earmark to sustain the program.
Veto 27 Part IB, Page 524, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (29), Prosecution Coordination Commission, SC Center for Fathers and Families, $400,000
The Center has been a contracted service provider to the Department of Social Services for over a decade, receiving an average of $1.8 million annually for its efforts. If we receive a set of defined services in exchange for those funds, then why would we just hand them this additional $400,000 earmark in exchange for nothing?
Veto 28 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (35)(b), Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Turning Leaf - Offender Education and Reentry Initiative, $100,000
By earmarking community corrections service to a single vendor, the Department of Probation, Pardon and Parole Services loses the flexibility and authority to manage its own contracts and services. I believe strongly in preparing offenders to re-enter our communities with an emphasis on offenders quickly joining the workforce. Offenders who work are less likely to commit crimes and return to prison. Nevertheless, I have consistently opposed this style of earmarking. The Department should have greater discretion to choose its partners and the ability to insist on performance standards in its contracts. Earmarking undermines both of these principles.
Veto 29 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (24)(c) Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, Savannah's Playground, $100,000
I appreciate the value of local pools and playgrounds, but each community must decide for itself how - and if - to fund these facilities. These are not projects that the State's taxpayers should be financing.
Veto 30 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(e), Department of Health and Human Services, Family Health Solutions of the Low Country - Low Country Healthy Start, $250,000
Veto 31 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(f), Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy Learners - Greenwood Program, $50,000
Veto 32 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(d), Department of Health and Human Services, Osprey Village, $200,000
These three earmarks for private health organizations represent well-meaning but highly local efforts that we see duplicated across the state. Many churches, social non-profits, and start-up health companies wish for the opportunity to receive supplemental funds or seed-money to launch initiatives. Each of these organizations should seek private investment or philanthropic contributions to further their private efforts.
Veto 33 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14 - Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 42(e) Department of Commerce, Community Development Corporations Initiative, $100,000
Veto 34 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14 - Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 42(h) Department of Commerce, SC Healthy Food Financing Initiative, $250,000
On June 3, 2015, I signed into law S.350, which reauthorized the Community Economic Development Act for an additional five years. In a statement to Senator Campbell, I indicated that my support for reauthorization was based on giving Community Development Corporations (CDC) investors time to meet the $5 million maximum tax credit ceiling and then wind-down this program. I further stated that I would not support any appropriation for CDCs or support further reauthorization.
Both of the items represent earmarks for CDCs, and I am vetoing these items in accordance with my previous communication to Senator Campbell.
Veto 35 Part IB, Page 445, Section 93, Department of Administration - Proviso 93.14, Inspector General Support Services
Veto 36 Part IB, Page 467, Section 104, State Fiscal Accountability Authority - Proviso 104.9, Aeronautics Support Function
These two provisos direct the support functions for two small agencies: the Inspector General (IG), and Division of Aeronautics. Proviso 93.14 prohibits the Department of Administration from providing any support services to the Inspector General and Proviso 104.9 requires the State Fiscal Accountability Authority to provide the same services to the Division of Aeronautics.
These provisos, when taken together, are totally inconsistent. Further, they defeat the goals of the South Carolina Restructuring Act of 2014 entirely. On July 1, 2015, both the IG and Division of Aeronautics will be allowed to enter into agreements with the support agency of their choice. These decisions should not be micro-managed through the budget process. We have high quality directors in both agencies, and they should be given the flexibility to manage their own organizations.
Veto 37 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14, Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 47, Codification of Laws and Legislative Council, Dues, $50,000
The General Assembly should not give itself an earmark to cover expenses. This is especially true considering, in 2012, the House of Representatives enjoyed a $2 million recurring increase in operating funds and in this Act, the Senate will see a $500,000 increase for the same. The General Assembly has provided sufficient recurring funds to pay for these operating costs and do not need additional earmarks.
Veto 38 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14, Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 22(e), Department of Health and Environmental Control, Water Quality, $5,000,000
The practice of providing an agency with large appropriations for grants without any direction, and then providing "letters of instruction" from legislative members or staff violates every sense of budgeting transparency and fiscal responsibility, and even violates the earmarking rules of the House of Representatives.
Instead of approving this unaccountable block grant, I have allowed $3.7 million in recurring funds for this purpose in the Rural Infrastructure Fund to become law so that regional water infrastructure grants may be awarded in a fair and impartial basis.
Veto 39 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14, Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 23(g) Department of Mental Health, Columbia Area Mental Health Center -Relocation form Bull Street Property (Requires 2:1 Match), $500,000
Pursuant to the sale of the Bull Street mental health facilities, the Department of Mental Health is subject to receive a guaranteed $15 million in proceeds in addition to performance-based funding as the property is redeveloped. The Department has more than enough funding on hand to self-finance any relocation from the property and will be made whole as Bull Street is developed, making any such additional funding unnecessary.
Veto 40 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14, Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 38, Department of Agriculture, "Certified SC" Marketing, $2,000,000
For several years, the Department of Agriculture has received time-limited appropriations from the Tobacco Master Settlement Fund for marketing and other efforts to assist tobacco farmers' transition from tobacco to other crops or industries. This is the first year that those funds have not been available to the Department, and despite a clear understanding that those funds were only available for five years, the Department is seeking to supplant them with state funds.
While I support efforts to promote South Carolina's goods, it is worth noting that this budget provides an additional $1.5 million for marketing and agribusiness. The Department will still have a sufficiently robust marketing and advertising budget to sell South Carolina.
Veto 41 Part IB, Page 305, Section 1, Department of Education - Proviso 1.35, Replacement Facilities
Every Superintendent of Education since 2004 has determined this project is not viable, yet this proviso has remained on the books. This proviso was originally established over a decade ago to support the development of a joint-use transportation and maintenance facility in Greenville County. It should be removed from the budget.
Veto 42 Part IB, Page 310, Section 1, Department of Education - Proviso 1.58, Lee County Bus Shop
This proviso first appeared in 2012 and forces the Department of Education to fund two specific bus shops at precisely the same levels as the prior year. This action interferes with the Department's ability to deploy its resources in an effective, statewide manner.
Veto 43 Part IB, Page 314, Section 1, Department of Education - Proviso 1.73, Alternative Fuel Transportation
This proviso directs the Department of Education to use at least ten percent of funds appropriated for the purchase or lease of school buses to purchase or lease alternative fuel vehicles. I have allowed provisos similar to this one to become law in two previous budgets, because the total size of the program was capped between five and ten percent of appropriations for the purchase of buses.
Unfortunately, this proviso removes all limitations on the amount of funds that can be used on the purchase of alternative fuel buses and sets a floor at ten percent of appropriated funds. In short, this proviso makes it more expensive to buy school buses. We have a poorly conditioned bus fleet and limited funds to purchase new buses - making them more expensive moves us entirely in the wrong direction.
Veto 44 Part IB, Page 393, Section 38, Department of Social Services - Proviso 38.28, Child Care Facilities Floor Beds
This proviso introduces ambiguous language that would allow certain childcare facilities that use "the practice of a documented educational curriculum including the least restrictive environment for infants" to employ floor beds instead of cribs for infant care. This is a significant change to childcare standards and was done without input of the relevant stakeholders. That is dangerous; it is unsafe for our kids, and it should not happen.
Parents across South Carolina should trust that their children will be safe when left with a childcare provider, and significant changes to safety standards are best left to the full consideration and debate of childcare providers, regulators, and public stakeholders.
Veto 45 Part IB, Page 450, Section 93, Department of Administration - Proviso 93.33, Classification and Compensation System Study
This proviso directs the Department of Administration to undertake a comprehensive study of statewide employee compensation and classification. The General Assembly passed legislation in 1990 that would make this exercise ongoing but has never fully funded that initiative. Furthermore, the cost to hire an external evaluator to do this work would be significantly more than this proviso allows.
While a comprehensive, statewide look at our human resources policies certainly falls under the umbrella of the Department of Administration, this proviso is unnecessarily prescriptive, and will not result in a comprehensive or useable tool.
Veto 46 Part IB, Page 320, Section 1, Department of Education - Proviso 1.95, First Steps Study Committee
On June 1, 2015, I signed H.3843, completing this task. This proviso is unnecessary.
Veto 47 Part IB, Page 435, Section 84, Department of Transportation - Proviso 84.11, Horry-Georgetown Evacuation Route
Last year, the General Assembly earmarked $4.5 million for this project out of Department of Transportation (DOT) funds and has placed language in H.4230, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Supplemental Appropriation Act, allowing affected counties to use County Transportation Funds for the furtherance of this project. Per the DOT, the Department has the money to do this already. This proviso is no longer necessary.
Veto 48 Part IB, Page 406, Section 57, Judicial Department - Proviso 57.19, Active Retired Judges
I am vetoing this proviso at the request of Chief Justice Jean Toal, on behalf of the Judicial Department, due to errors in the proviso's wording that will result in reducing the current pay rate for active retired judges.
Veto 49 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (46)(b), Department of Transportation, Highway 17 Corridor Study, $25,000
Veto 50 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(o), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, City of Conway - Renovation of Horry County Museum for Multipurpose Space (Requires 3:1 Match), $250,000
Veto 51 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(a), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Undiscovered SC, $500,000
Veto 52 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(c), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Sports Development Marketing Program, $875,000
Veto 53 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (22)(j), Department of Health and Environmental Control, Indoor Aquatic and Community Center - Richland County (Requires 2:1 Match), $100,000
Veto 54 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(k), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Woodrow Wilson Home - National Marketing, $125,000
Veto 55 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(m), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Calhoun County Renovation of Former John Ford Middle/High School for Community Center (Requires 2:1 Match), $180,000
Veto 56 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(l), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, City of Sumter Green Space Initiative (Requires 1:1 Match), $400,000
Veto 57 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(f), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Columbia Museum of Art, $200,000
Veto 58 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(s), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Inman City Market, $100,000
Veto 59 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(r), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Manning Avenue/Wilder School Area Green Space Initiative, $250,000
Veto 60 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(j), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Mountain Lakes Destination Promotion and Historic Preservation (Requires 2:1 Match), $100,000
Veto 61 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(d), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Newberry Opera House, $60,000
Veto 62 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(h), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Medal of Honor Museum, $1,000,000
Veto 63 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(e), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Palmetto Conservation Foundation - Palmetto Trail, $300,000
Veto 64 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(n), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Spartanburg City Park Project, $300,000
Veto 65 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(q), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Township Auditorium, $250,000
Veto 66 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (41)(i), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Upstate 9/11 Memorial (Requires 2:1 Match), $200,000
This list of 18 pork-barrel projects above represents over $5 million of some of the most irresponsible political deal-making that South Carolina has to offer. These earmarks fortunately disappeared during the most recent recession but returned in force as tax revenues rebounded. I will not support pork in this or any budget.
Veto 67 Part IB, Page 517, Section 117, General Provisions - Proviso 117.137, Grant Funds
This proviso allows grant funds awarded to the now defunct Kiwanis Club of Fountain Inn to be transferred to another Kiwanis Club. Passing grant funds between different organizations by proviso subverts the grant requirements and oversight safeguards of the original grant. As stewards of public funds, we have a responsibility to ensure tax dollars are spent wisely by following our own grant-making rules.
Veto 68 Part IB, Page 399, Section 49, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism - Proviso 49.3, Advertising Funds Use and Carry Forward
Every year, I am put in a position to veto public funds for the Southeastern Wildlife Exposition (SEWE), a private organization that annually holds an event in Charleston that draws a large enough attraction to operate independently of state support. Despite repeatedly demonstrating that this earmark overwhelmingly goes to pay a single salary for SEWE's director, it inexplicably retains sufficient support to remain in the budget.
The one thing that has changed is that SEWE and its legislative supporters have engaged in efforts to make this earmark decreasingly transparent, first sanitizing it through the SEWE non-profit to a private consultancy and is now hiding behind the credibility of the Charleston CVB. This should be the last year such tactics are tolerated by the General Assembly.
Veto 69 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (43)(b), Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, State Fire Marshal: Fairfield County - Countywide Fire Suppression, $100,000
Veto 70 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (43)(a), Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, State Fire Marshal: Chester County - Countywide Fire Suppression, $100,000
South Carolina has 46 counties, yet only two were funded directly in this budget. There is no justifiable reason to provide this funding to these two counties in this manner and ignore the other 44. In addition, while I generally support the efforts of fire districts to provide better services for citizens, but I believe that South Carolina has a stable process for funding local services locally.
Veto 71 Part IB, Page 524, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (32)(b), Department of Public Safety, Law Enforcement Grants, $60,000
This is a direct earmark to Sumter County. Again we have 46 counties in South Carolina, and there is no justifiable reason to provide this funding to Sumter County and ignore the other 45. In addition, the State already provides resources to local law enforcement via the law enforcement grants managed by the Department of Public Safety, the body camera funding available in this Act, or the many uncompensated support services provided by the State Law Enforcement Division to local governments.
Veto 72 Part IB, Page 522, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (9), Confederate Relic Room & Military Museum Commission, C.A. Huey Collection, $390,198
The C.A. Huey Collection is a private collection recently made available for purchase. Private donations can and should pay for this.
Veto 73 Part IB, Page 521, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (7)(a), Arts Commission, Auntie Karen Foundation - Education Through Arts Curriculum, $10,000
Veto 74 Part IB, Page 521, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (7)(b), Arts Commission, Orangeburg County Fine Arts Center (Requires 2:1 Match), $90,000
Veto 75 Part IB, Page 521, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (6)(a), Department of Archives and History, Restoration and Repurposing of Fireproof Building (Requires 2:1 Match), $1,500,000
Veto 76 Part IB, Page 521, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (6)(b), Department of Archives and History, Kings Mountain - Fort Thicketty - Historic Restoration, $100,000
Veto 77 Part IB, Page 521, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (6)(c), Department of Archives and History, Historic Heyward House, $100,000
Veto 78 Part IB, Page 521, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (6)(d), Department of Archives and History, Architectural Heritage Preservation, $250,000
In each of our communities, we have historic sites, museums, and cultural centers that could benefit from renovations, refreshed exhibits, or new artifacts. The right way to finance these undertakings is by selling memberships, collecting admissions fees, and soliciting philanthropic support. The wrong way to do it is by earmarking state funds to choose one site over another to support. This is exactly what the taxpayers of South Carolina have asked to stop.
Veto 79 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (42)(j), Department of Commerce, Marion County Economic Development, $250,000
Veto 80 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (42)(l), Department of Commerce, Richland County Economic Development, $100,000
Veto 81 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (42)(d), Department of Commerce, Rock Hill Knowledge Park (Requires 2:1 Match), $400,000
Veto 82 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (42)(k), Department of Commerce, Williamsburg County Economic Development, $100,000
The Department of Commerce gives all regional economic development alliances money each year. This year, the alliances will receive $5,000,000 through an agreed upon formula. Why would we select only four organizations to receive additional money when all are worthy?
Veto 83 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (42)(i), Department of Commerce, Hartsville Downtown Revitalization - Center Theater (Requires 2:1 Match), $500,000
The City of Hartsville, like so many others cities and towns across this state were deeply affected by the most recent recession, has needs for community revitalization and economic development. We provided for these needs in 2012 when we signed into law the Abandoned Buildings Revitalization Act. However, city or town, Hartsville or any other, should be singled out in the budget this way. It is not an appropriate way for this government to spend the taxpayers' dollars, and I ask that you join me in discontinuing this process.
For these reasons, I am vetoing the aforementioned line items and sections in R. 127, H. 3701
My very best,
Nikki R. Haley
Governor
Received as information.
R. 128, H. 3702--ORDERED PRINTED IN THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
June 29, 2015
The Honorable James H. Lucas
Speaker of the House of Representatives
South Carolina Statehouse, Second Floor
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives,
I am vetoing and returning to you several line items in R. 128, H. 3702, a Joint Resolution to appropriate monies from the Capital Reserve Fund.
When I submitted my Fiscal Year 2015-16 Executive Budget in January, my recommendations for the Capital Reserve Fund included funding for our colleges and universities, our technical college system, our National Guard armories, and other priorities to maintain state-owned infrastructure. Many of those same priorities are expressed in the Joint Resolution that came to my desk, but it is worth noting how this bill got to my desk.
Earlier this year, the General Assembly proposed a massive bond bill that would have totaled over $500 million in borrowing for state-owned buildings and one-time cash for recurring expenses of government. With help from many legislators, this hasty and irresponsible borrowing plan was placed on the shelf. By the end of May, we had an additional $300 million in General Funds alone and another $100 million in other sources such as the education sales tax and lottery funds. South Carolina's good fortune - the result of a trained workforce, business-friendly climate, and low debt - drives tax revenues to pay for our needs on a recurring basis.
The Capital Reserve Fund bill you have sent to my desk largely reflects our values and priorities, funding colleges and technical schools with money we have now, not with debt we will pay for over the next fifteen years.
Veto 1 Section 1, Page 2 - Item (7), Judicial Department Disaster Recovery Plan, $2,500,000
The Fiscal Year 2015-16 Appropriation Act supports two additional family court judges and related staff, as well as capital funding for digital courtroom reporting equipment to make our courts run more efficiently. I am unable to support, however, the $2,500,000 for disaster recovery in light of Act 269 of 2012, which gives the court a dedicated source of recurring funding expressly for "the support of court technology" that should be used to pay for this item.
Veto 2 Section 1, Page 3 - Item (17), Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, State Aquarium Renovation, $1,000,000
As with over a dozen other earmarks I vetoed in the FY 2015-16 General Appropriations Act, this is an unacceptable earmark in a year where the General Assembly gave state parks very little capital support. The State Aquarium should seek local and philanthropic support, memberships, and fees to pay for facility maintenance.
Veto 3 Section 1, Page 3 - Item (18), Election Commission, Presidential Preference Primaries, $2,200,000
I vetoed a similar item in 2011 and must now do so for the same reasons. As I have made clear throughout my entire administration, I believe that private dollars are the appropriate way to fund a partisan Presidential Primary. The Attorney General has affirmed that the respective state parties can contract with the State Election Commission to conduct the primary. South Carolina will host the First in the South Presidential Primary in 2016, and it will be as successful as it always has been; but it should not fall to the taxpayers to cover the expense.
For these reasons, I am vetoing the aforementioned line items and sections in R. 128, H. 3702.
My very best,
Nikki R. Haley
Governor
Received as information.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
June 29, 2015
The Honorable James H. Lucas
Speaker of the House of Representatives
South Carolina Statehouse, Second Floor
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives,
Today, I am vetoing and returning without my approval a certain line item in R. 130, H. 4230 (Word version), the FY 2015-16 Supplemental Appropriations Act.
This year, the State of South Carolina was fortunate enough to see revenues greater than any since the Great Recession, but those revenues were not certified until close to the end of this year's budget process. When I proposed my Executive Budget in January, it funded government and made investments in education, infrastructure, and public safety, doing so with less than $300 million in recurring General Fund dollars. When the Board of Economic Advisors certified over $300 million new General Fund dollars to be spent next year, it was effectively the same as certifying an entirely new year's amount of revenues.
Fortunately, due to the efforts of many House and Senate fighters, we made sure that supplemental appropriations went to debt relief and core functions of government, with a significant investment in infrastructure. Between direct appropriations and other items, over $350 million will go to roads next year - all without raising taxes.
Our work to fix roads is not finished yet. While supplemental funds may be going to local governments - the governments closest to the people - most of the money is non-recurring and will not be repeated next year. Further, local governments are not required to follow the same priorities as the Department of Transportation; this leaves room for County Transportation Committees to pick road projects that may not be the highest priority of citizens. Next year, we need to work hard to secure a more permanent source of funds for our roads and do so in an accountable way.
In addition to appropriating new General Funds to infrastructure and debt relief, I do not object to the remaining parts of this Act, including sections that allocate monies for education from state funds restricted for education-only use, with one exception: I am vetoing one allocation for the Lieutenant Governor's Office on Aging, which is an earmark requested by a single state lawmaker, not the agency.
Veto 1 Section 3; Page 3; Item B(1) Lieutenant Governor's Office - Predatory Lending Education, $250,000.
As stated above, this item is an earmark for a single state lawmaker intended to be used for a private business for predatory lending education. These types of hidden earmarks on behalf of private businesses violate the principles of transparent budgeting and competitive procurement.
I ask that you sustain this good-government veto with my thanks and those of the people of South Carolina for taking another important step in improving our state's infrastructure.
My very best,
Nikki R. Haley
Governor
Received as information.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bedingfield Bingham Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Collins Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Felder Forrester Funderburk Gagnon George Goldfinch Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan King Kirby Knight Lowe Lucas McEachern McKnight W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Nanney Neal Newton Norman Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Ridgeway Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stringer Tallon Thayer Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Williams Yow
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Monday, July 6.
Todd Atwater Bruce W. Bannister Beth Bernstein William Bowers Douglas "Doug" Brannon Shannon Erickson Kirkman Finlay Mike Gambrell Wendell Gilliard Jerry Govan Jonathon Hill Ralph Kennedy H. B. "Chip" Limehouse Dwight Loftis Deborah A. Long David Mack Peter McCoy, Jr. Mia S. McLeod Robert Riley W. E. "Bill" Sandifer Leon Stavrinakis William "Bill" Taylor William R. "Bill" Whitmire Mark Willis
The SPEAKER granted Rep. HIXON a leave of absence for the day due to a long-scheduled, prior commitment.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. MERRILL a leave of absence for the day.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. HIOTT a leave of absence for the day due to previously scheduled church mission trip.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. BERNSTEIN a temporary leave of absence to attend a funeral.
In accordance with House Rule 5.2 below:
"5.2 Every bill before presentation shall have its title endorsed; every report, its title at length; every petition, memorial, or other paper, its prayer or substance; and, in every instance, the name of the member presenting any paper shall be endorsed and the papers shall be presented by the member to the Speaker at the desk. A member may add his name to a bill or resolution or a co-sponsor of a bill or resolution may remove his name at any time prior to the bill or resolution receiving passage on second reading. The member or co-sponsor shall notify the Clerk of the House in writing of his desire to have his name added or removed from the bill or resolution. The Clerk of the House shall print the member's or co-sponsor's written notification in the House Journal. The removal or addition of a name does not apply to a bill or resolution sponsored by a committee."
Bill Number: H. 4093 (Word version)
Date: REMOVE:
06/30/15 MCEACHERN
The Vetoes on the following Act were taken up:
(R. 127) H. 3701 -- Ways and Means Committee: AN ACT TO MAKE APPROPRIATIONS AND TO PROVIDE REVENUES TO MEET THE ORDINARY EXPENSES OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2015, TO REGULATE THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH FUNDS, AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT DURING THIS FISCAL YEAR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Veto 1 Part IA, Page 149, Section 49, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; I. Administration; B. Administrative Services; Aid to Subdivisions - Allocations to Municipalities-Restricted, $1,806,000 Total Funds, $500,000 General Funds
Rep. HERBKERSMAN explained the Veto.
Rep. BALLENTINE spoke in favor of the Veto.
Rep. HAYES spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Corley H. A. Crawford Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Jefferson Johnson Jordan King Kirby Knight Limehouse Lowe Lucas McEachern M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bradley Burns Chumley Cole Collins Crosby Daning Forrester Hamilton Henderson Hill Huggins Loftis Long Nanney Norman Putnam Quinn G. R. Smith Southard Stringer Tallon Thayer Toole Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 2 Part IA, Page 149, Section 49, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; I. Administration; B. Administrative Services; Aid to Subdivisions - Allocations to Counties-Restricted, $1,514,500 Total Funds, $500,000 General Funds
Rep. HERBKERSMAN explained the Veto.
Rep. BALLENTINE spoke in favor of the Veto.
Rep. HAYES spoke against the Veto.
Rep. HERBKERSMAN spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bannister Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Jefferson Johnson Jordan King Kirby Knight Limehouse Lowe Lucas McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bradley Burns Chumley Collins Forrester Hamilton Henderson Hill Huggins Loftis Long Nanney Norman Putnam Quinn G. R. Smith Southard Stringer Tallon Thayer Toole Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 3 Part IA, Page 150, Section 49, Department of Parks, Recreation and Programs and Services; A. Tourism Sales and Marketing; Special Items - Sports Marketing Grant Program, $500,000 General Funds
Rep. HERBKERSMAN explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bannister Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Finlay Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Jefferson Johnson Jordan King Kirby Knight Limehouse Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells White Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bradley Burns Chumley Collins Felder Forrester Hamilton Henderson Hill Huggins Long Nanney Norman Putnam Quinn Southard Stringer Tallon Thayer Toole Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 4 Part IA, Page 80, Section 29, State Museum Commission; II. Programs; New Positions - Program Coordinator I, $35,000 General Funds
Rep. WHITE explained the Veto.
Rep. HILL spoke in favor of the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bingham Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Corley Delleney Dillard Douglas Finlay Funderburk George Gilliard Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson King Kirby Knight Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Norrell Ott Parks Quinn Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer J. E. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bannister Bedingfield Bradley Burns Chumley Cole Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Duckworth Erickson Felder Forrester Gagnon Gambrell Goldfinch Hamilton Henderson Hill Johnson Jordan Kennedy Long Lowe Lucas McCoy Nanney Newton Norman Pope Putnam Rivers Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Southard Stringer Tallon Thayer Toole White Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 5 Part IA, Page 80, Section 29, State Museum commission; II. Programs; New Positions - Program Coordinator II, $40,000 General Funds
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bingham Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Corley Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Funderburk George Gilliard Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson King Kirby Knight Limehouse Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Norrell Ott Parks Quinn Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer J. E. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bannister Bedingfield Bradley Burns Chumley Clemmons Cole Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Gagnon Gambrell Goldfinch Hamilton Henderson Herbkersman Hicks Hill Johnson Jordan Kennedy Loftis Long Lowe Lucas McCoy Nanney Newton Norman Pope Putnam Rivers Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Sottile Southard Stringer Tallon Thayer Toole White Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 6 Part 1A, Page 36, Section 14, Clemson University (Education & General); I. Education & General; A. Unrestricted; New Positions - ENG/ASSOC ENG IV, $279,850 General Funds
Rep. WHITE explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Nanney Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pope Putnam Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Atwater Bradley Collins Daning Delleney Felder Hill Johnson Long McCoy Norman Pitts Quinn Rivers Southard Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 7 Part IA, Page 36, Section 14, Clemson University (Education & General); I. Education & General; A. Unrestricted; New Positions - Professor, $748,000 General Funds
Rep. WHITE explained the Veto.
Rep. CLARY spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bannister Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Dillard Douglas Duckworth Finlay Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Jefferson Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Lowe Lucas Mack McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Putnam Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bradley Burns Collins Delleney Erickson Felder Forrester Henderson Hicks Hill Huggins Johnson Jordan Long McCoy Nanney Norman Quinn Rivers Southard Thayer Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 8 Part IA, Page 36, Section 14, Clemson University (Education & General); I. Education & General; A. Unrestricted; New Positions - Research Associate, $187,000 General Funds
Rep. CLARY explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bannister Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Dillard Douglas Duckworth Finlay Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Jefferson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Lucas Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Putnam Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bradley Burns Collins Delleney Erickson Felder Forrester Henderson Hicks Hill Huggins Johnson Long McCoy Nanney Norman Quinn Rivers Southard Thayer Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 9 Part IA, Page 137, Section 45, Clemson University (Public Service Activities); IV. Cooperative Extension Service; New Positions - GIS Analyst, $40,000 General Funds
Rep. SIMRILL explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Tallon Taylor Thayer Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Ballentine Bradley Collins Felder Henderson Hicks Hill Long Nanney Norman Rivers Southard Stringer
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 10. Part IA, Page 137, Section 45, Clemson University (Public Service Activities); IV. Cooperative Extension Service; New Positions - Program Assistant, $35,000 General Funds
Rep. SIMRILL explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Bamberg Bannister Bingham Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Bradley Collins Daning Felder Henderson Hill Long Nanney Norman Rivers Southard Stringer Thayer
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 11 Part IA, Page 137, Section 45, Clemson University (Public Service Activities); IV. Cooperative Extension Service; New Positions - Program Manager I, $50,000 General Funds
Rep. SIMRILL explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Bamberg Bannister Bingham Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Lucas Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pope Putnam Quinn Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Tallon Taylor Thayer Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Ballentine Bedingfield Bradley Collins Crosby Daning Felder Henderson Hicks Hill Loftis Long Lowe McCoy Nanney Norman Pitts Rivers Southard Stringer Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 12 Part IA, Page 138, Section 45, Clemson University (Public Service Activities); IV. Cooperative Extension Service; New Positions - Extension Associates, $200,000 General Funds
Rep. SIMRILL explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bradley Collins Crosby Daning Henderson Long Nanney Norman Rivers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 13 Part IA, Page 138, Section 45, Clemson University (Public Service Activities); IV. Cooperative Extension Service; New Positions - Extension Agent, $600,000 General Funds
Rep. SIMRILL explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Delleney Dillard Duckworth Erickson Felder Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bradley Collins Crosby Daning Henderson Hill Long McCoy Nanney Norman Rivers Thayer
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 14 Part IA, Page 1, Section 1, Department of Education; IV. Accountability; A. Operations; New Positions - Education Associate, $130,000 General Funds
Rep. BINGHAM explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Duckworth Erickson Felder Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Chumley Collins Hill Long Nanney Norman Putnam Thayer
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 15 Part IA, Page 1, Section 1, Department of Education; IV. Accountability; A. Operations; New Positions - DPTY/Division Director, $119,000 General Funds
Rep. BINGHAM explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Duckworth Felder Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norman Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Collins Hill Long Nanney Putnam Southard Thayer Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 16 Part IA, Page 2, Section 1, Department of Education; VIII. School Effectiveness; New Positions - Education Associate, $175,000 General Funds
Rep. BINGHAM explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Collins Hill Long Nanney Norman Putnam Southard Thayer
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 17 Part IA, Page 2, Section 1, Department of Education; VIII. School Effectiveness; New Positions - Administrative Assistant, $38,000 General Funds
Rep. BINGHAM explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Chumley Collins Hill Long Nanney Norman Putnam Southard Thayer Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 18 Part IA, Page 2, Section 1, Department of Education; VIII. School Effectiveness; New Positions - Program Manager I, $155,000 General Funds
Rep. BINGHAM explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Chumley Collins Hill Johnson Long Nanney Norman Putnam Southard Thayer
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 19 Part IA, Page 2, Section 1, Department of Education; VIII. School Effectiveness; Personal Service - Program Coordinator I, $95,000
Rep. BINGHAM explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Chumley Collins Hill Long Nanney Norman Putnam Southard Thayer
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 20 Part IB, Page 372, Section 33, Department of Health and Human Services - Proviso 33.30, Healthcare Workforce Analysis
Rep. G. M. SMITH explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley Crosby Daning Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Finlay Funderburk Gambrell George Gilliard Govan Hardee Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jordan King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Neal Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Tallon Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bradley Burns Chumley H. A. Crawford Felder Forrester Gagnon Hamilton Henderson Hill Huggins Long Nanney Norman Putnam Quinn Rivers Southard Stringer Thayer Toole Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 21 Part IA, Page 9, Section 1, Department of Education; XII. Education Improvement Act; F. Partnerships; 2. Other Agencies and Entities; District Subdivisions - Arts Curricula, $1,000,000 Total Funds
Rep. WHITE explained the Veto.
Rep. STAVRINAKIS spoke against the Veto.
Rep. HILL spoke in favor of the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bernstein Bingham Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Collins Corley Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson King Kirby Knight Limehouse Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Tallon Taylor Thayer Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Atwater Bedingfield Bradley H. A. Crawford Hill Johnson Jordan Kennedy Loftis Long Nanney Norman Putnam G. R. Smith Stringer Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 22 . Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 43(c) Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Wind and Seismic Residential Building Requirements Study, $40,000
Rep. SANDIFER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Dillard Douglas Duckworth Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Quinn Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Bannister Bedingfield Chumley Cole Collins Daning Delleney Felder Hamilton Henderson Hicks Hill Long McCoy Nanney Norman Putnam Rivers Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Southard Stringer Thayer Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 23 Part IB, Page 431, Section 81, Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation - Proviso 81.14, Wind and Structural Engineering Research Lab
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Corley H. A. Crawford Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Quinn Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Bannister Bedingfield Chumley Cole Collins Crosby Daning Delleney Felder Hamilton Henderson Hicks Hill Long McCoy Nanney Norman Pope Putnam Rivers Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Southard Stringer Thayer Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 24 Part IB, Page 515, Section 117, General Provisions - Proviso 117.131, Energy Efficiency Repair and Related Maintenance
Rep. WHITE explained the Veto.
Rep. HILL spoke in favor of the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bernstein Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Horne Hosey Howard Jefferson Johnson Jordan King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bradley Burns Cole Collins Daning Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Hamilton Henderson Hicks Hill Kennedy Long Nanney Newton Norman Putnam Quinn Rivers Southard Stringer Tallon Thayer Toole Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 25 Part IB, Page 522, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 10(a) Commission on Higher Education, University Center of Greenville, $250,000
Rep. WHITE explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bernstein Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Clary Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley Delleney Dillard Douglas Felder Finlay Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Jefferson Jordan King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lucas Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Nanney Neal Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bradley Clemmons Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Duckworth Erickson Forrester Goldfinch Hicks Hill Huggins Johnson Kennedy Long Newton Norman Putnam Quinn Rivers Southard Tallon Thayer Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 26 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (42)(f) Department of Commerce - IT-ology - Coursepower Project, $200,000
Rep. SIMRILL explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bernstein Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cole Corley Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Felder Finlay Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Jefferson Jordan King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Ridgeway Riley Rutherford Ryhal Simrill G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Erickson Forrester Hamilton Henderson Hill Huggins Johnson Kennedy Long McCoy Nanney Norman Putnam Quinn Rivers G. R. Smith Southard Stringer Tallon Thayer Toole Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 27 Part IB, Page 524, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (29), Prosecution Coordination Commission, SC Center for Fathers and Families, $400,000
Rep. PITTS explained the Veto.
Rep. HILL spoke in favor of the Veto.
Rep. WILLIAMS spoke against the Veto.
Rep. NORRELL spoke against the Veto.
Rep. HENEGAN spoke against the Veto.
Rep. PITTS spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Daning Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson King Knight Limehouse Loftis Long Lucas Mack McCoy M. S. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Neal Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Atwater Bedingfield Chumley Crosby Felder Hill Kennedy Norman Putnam Quinn Rivers Simrill G. M. Smith Thayer
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
ABSTENTION FROM VOTING
BASED ON POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto Number Veto 27 Part IB, Page 524, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (29), Prosecution Coordination Commission, SC Center for Fathers and Families
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
a. A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
b. A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-740(C) because of representation of a client before a particular agency or commission by me or an individual or business with whom I am associated within the past year.
c. A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-745(B) and (C) because a contract for goods or services may be entered into within the next year with an agency, commission, board, department, or other entity funded through the general appropriation bill by myself, an individual with whom I am associated in partnership with or a business or partnership in which I have a greater than 5% interest.
Rep. Wallace H. "Jay" Jordan
Veto 28 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (35)(b), Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Turning Leaf - Offender Education and Reentry Initiative, $100,000
Rep. PITTS explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Gilliard King Limehouse Robinson-Simpson Sottile Stavrinakis Tinkler Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Atwater Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley R. L. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell Goldfinch Hamilton Hardee Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hill Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy Knight Loftis Long Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Nanney Neal Newton Norman Ott Parks Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Riley Rivers Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Southard Spires Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Willis Yow
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
ABSTENTION FROM VOTING
BASED ON POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto Number Veto 28 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (35)(b), Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Turning Leaf - Offender Education and Reentry Initiative
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-740(C) because of representation of a client before a particular agency or commission by me or an individual
Rep. Gary E. Clary
Veto 29 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (24)(c) Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, Savannah's Playground, $100,000
Rep. WHITE explained the Veto.
Rep. RYHAL spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bannister Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Horne Hosey Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy King Knight Limehouse Loftis Long Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Nanney Neal Newton Norman Norrell Ott Parks Pope Quinn Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 30 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(e), Department of Health and Human Services, Family Health Solutions of the Low Country - Low Country Healthy Start, $250,000
Rep. WHITE explained the Veto.
Rep. SOUTHARD spoke upon the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anthony Bales Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Dillard Douglas Erickson George Gilliard Hart Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson King Knight Mack M. S. McLeod Mitchell Neal Norrell Parks Ridgeway Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Spires Tinkler Weeks Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bradley Clary Clemmons Cole H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Duckworth Felder Forrester Gagnon Hamilton Hardee Herbkersman Hicks Hill Huggins Jordan Kennedy Loftis Long Lowe Lucas McCoy D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Nanney Norman Ott Pope Putnam Quinn Riley Rivers Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Sottile Southard Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Wells White Whitmire Willis Yow
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 31 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(f), Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy Learners - Greenwood Program, $50,000
Rep. WHITE explained the Veto.
Rep. SOUTHARD spoke in favor of the Veto.
Rep. PARKS spoke against the Veto.
Rep. HOWARD spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anthony Bales Bernstein Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Dillard Douglas Erickson Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hosey Howard Jefferson King Knight Mack McEachern M. S. McLeod Mitchell V. S. Moss Neal Norrell Parks Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford J. E. Smith Spires Tinkler Weeks Whipper Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bradley Brannon Clary Clemmons Cole H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Duckworth Felder Finlay Forrester Hamilton Hardee Henderson Hicks Hill Johnson Jordan Kennedy Limehouse Loftis Long Lucas McCoy McKnight D. C. Moss Nanney Norman Ott Pope Putnam Quinn Rivers Ryhal Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Sottile Southard Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Wells White Whitmire
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
After recusing myself from voting on Veto 31 of H. 3701, the General Appropriation Bill, I inadvertently voted on this Veto. I wish the record to reflect that I meant to abstain from voting.
Rep. Cezar E. McKnight
I was temporarily out of the Chamber on constituent business during the vote on Vetoes 27 - 31. If I had been present, I would have voted to override the Governor's Veto on all those I missed.
Rep. Roger K. Kirby
Rep. G. R. SMITH moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 30 was sustained.
Rep. G. R. SMITH moved to table the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.
Rep. G. R. SMITH moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 31 was sustained.
Rep. G. R. SMITH moved to table the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE granted Rep. BANNISTER a leave of absence for the remainder of the day due to family medical reasons.
Veto 32 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(d), Department of Health and Human Services, Osprey Village, $200,000
Rep. HERBKERSMAN explained the Veto.
Rep. ATWATER spoke in favor of the Veto.
Rep. HERBKERSMAN spoke against the Veto.
Rep. RUTHERFORD spoke against the Veto.
Rep. ATWATER spoke in favor of the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her 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 Bernstein Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Corley Dillard Douglas Finlay Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Govan Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jordan King Kirby Knight Lowe Lucas Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell V. S. Moss Neal Newton Norrell Parks Pitts Pope Ridgeway Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Spires Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells White Whitmire Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Burns Chumley Clemmons Cole H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Duckworth Felder Forrester Hamilton Hardee Hicks Hill Huggins Johnson Kennedy Loftis Long McCoy D. C. Moss Nanney Norman Putnam Quinn Riley Rivers G. R. Smith Sottile Southard Stringer Tallon Thayer Toole Willis Yow
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 33 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14 - Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 42(e) Department of Commerce, Community Development Corporations Initiative, $100,000
Rep. SIMRILL explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bernstein Bingham Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley H. A. Crawford Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Felder Finlay Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Johnson King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Tallon Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells White Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bradley Chumley Collins Crosby Daning Erickson Forrester Hamilton Hill Huggins Jordan Long Nanney Norman Putnam Quinn Rivers G. R. Smith Southard Stringer Thayer Toole Willis
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 on constituent business during the vote on Veto 33. If I had been present, I would have voted to override the Governor's Veto.
Rep. Gary E. Clary
Veto 34 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14 - Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 42(h) Department of Commerce, SC Healthy Food Financing Initiative, $250,000
Rep. SIMRILL explained the Veto.
Rep. FINLAY spoke against the Veto.
Rep. HOWARD spoke against the Veto.
Rep. SIMRILL spoke in favor of the Veto.
Rep. SOUTHARD spoke in favor of the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bernstein Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Chumley Clary Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Dillard Douglas Duckworth Finlay Funderburk George Gilliard Govan Hart Hayes Henegan Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Johnson King Kirby Knight Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell Neal Norrell Parks Pitts Ridgeway Robinson-Simpson Rutherford J. E. Smith Stavrinakis Tinkler Weeks Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bradley Burns Clemmons Cole Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Erickson Felder Forrester Gagnon Gambrell Goldfinch Hamilton Hardee Henderson Hicks Hill Huggins Limehouse Loftis Long Lowe McCoy D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Nanney Newton Norman Ott Pope Putnam Quinn Riley Rivers Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Wells Whipper White Whitmire Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. G. R. SMITH moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 34 was sustained.
Rep. G. R. SMITH moved to table the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.
Veto 35 Part IB, Page 445, Section 93, Department of Administration - Proviso 93.14, Inspector General Support Services
Rep. HERBKERSMAN explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
King Whipper
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Atwater Ballentine Bamberg Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley R. L. Brown Burns Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hill Hosey Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy Knight Limehouse Long Lowe Lucas McCoy M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Nanney Neal Newton Norman Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Taylor Thayer Tinkler Weeks Wells White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 36 Part IB, Page 467, Section 104, State Fiscal Accountability Authority - Proviso 104.9, Aeronautics Support Function
Rep. WHITE moved to adjourn debate on the Veto, which was agreed to.
Veto 37 Part IB, Page 526, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14, Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 47, Codification of Laws and Legislative Council, Dues, $50,000
Rep. HERBKERSMAN explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bernstein Bingham Bowers G. A. Brown Burns Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Collins Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hardee Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Hosey Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Tallon Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bradley Daning Erickson Felder Hamilton Henderson Hill Huggins Long Nanney Norman Putnam Quinn Riley Rivers Southard Stringer Thayer Toole Willis
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 38 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14, Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 22(e), Department of Health and Environmental Control, Water Quality, $5,000,000
Rep. WHITE explained the Veto.
Rep. ATWATER spoke in favor of the Veto.
Rep. PITTS spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Corley Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Finlay Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jordan King Kirby Knight Limehouse Lowe Lucas McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Pitts Pope Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Tinkler Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Burns Chumley Clemmons Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Felder Forrester Goldfinch Hamilton Henderson Hill Huggins Johnson Kennedy Loftis Long McCoy Nanney Norman Putnam Quinn Southard Stringer Tallon Thayer Toole
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 39 Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14, Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 23(g) Department of Mental Health, Columbia Area Mental Health Center -Relocation form Bull Street Property (Requires 2:1 Match), $500,000
Rep. G. M. SMITH moved to adjourn debate on the Veto, which was agreed to.
Veto 40 Part IB, Page 525, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14, Nonrecurring Revenue - Item 38, Department of Agriculture, "Certified SC" Marketing, $2,000,000
Rep. NORMAN explained the Veto.
Rep. SIMRILL spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley Brannon G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Collins Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Long Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Daning Hamilton Henderson Hill Nanney Norman Putnam Thayer
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 41 Part IB, Page 305, Section 1, Department of Education - Proviso 1.35, Replacement Facilities
Rep. BINGHAM explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anthony Bales Bamberg Bowers G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clary Clyburn Dillard Douglas Gilliard Hart Henegan Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson King Mack McEachern M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell Neal Norrell Ridgeway Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Tinkler Weeks Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bradley Brannon Burns Chumley Clemmons Cole Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell Goldfinch Hamilton Hardee Henderson Herbkersman Hicks Huggins Johnson Jordan Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Long Lowe Lucas McCoy D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Nanney Newton Norman Ott Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Rivers Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Wells White Whitmire Willis Yow
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 42 Part IB, Page 310, Section 1, Department of Education - Proviso 1.58, Lee County Bus Shop
Rep. G. A. BROWN explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bamberg Bernstein Bowers Bradley Brannon G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Collins Crosby Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Hardee Hart Hayes Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan King Kirby Knight Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Pitts Pope Quinn Ridgeway Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Atwater Bedingfield Bingham Burns H. A. Crawford Daning Erickson Felder Goldfinch Hamilton Henderson Hill Kennedy Loftis Long D. C. Moss Nanney Norman Putnam Rivers G. R. Smith Southard Stringer Thayer
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 43 Part IB, Page 314, Section 1, Department of Education - Proviso 1.73, Alternative Fuel Transportation
Rep. BINGHAM explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anderson Bernstein G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Dillard Douglas Gilliard Govan Henegan Hodges Hosey Jefferson King Kirby Mack McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell Neal Norrell Ott Parks Ridgeway Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Stavrinakis Tinkler Weeks Whipper Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bowers Bradley Brannon Chumley Clary Clemmons Cole Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell Goldfinch Hamilton Hardee Hart Henderson Herbkersman Hicks Hill Huggins Johnson Jordan Kennedy Knight Limehouse Long Lowe Lucas McCoy D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Nanney Newton Norman Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Rivers Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Wells White Whitmire Willis Yow
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 44 Part IB, Page 393, Section 38, Department of Social Services - Proviso 38.28, Child Care Facilities Floor Beds
Rep. FUNDERBURK explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bernstein Bingham Bowers Brannon R. L. Brown Burns Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Finlay Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norman Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Taylor Thayer Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bradley Chumley Cole Collins Felder Forrester Hicks Hill Huggins Long Nanney Putnam Southard Tallon
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 45 Part IB, Page 450, Section 93, Department of Administration - Proviso 93.33, Classification and Compensation System Study
Rep. HERBKERSMAN explained the Veto.
Rep. COBB-HUNTER spoke against the Veto.
Rep. PITTS spoke against the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Bales Bamberg Bernstein Bowers Bradley Brannon G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Collins Corley H. A. Crawford Crosby Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Hayes Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hill Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Johnson Jordan King Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Neal Newton Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Felder Huggins Kennedy Long Nanney Norman Putnam Quinn Rivers Simrill G. M. Smith Thayer
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
ABSTENTION FROM VOTING
BASED ON POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below referenced election because of a potential conflict of interest and wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
Rep. Joseph S. Daning
Veto 46 Part IB, Page 320, Section 1, Department of Education - Proviso 1.95, First Steps Study Committee
Rep. ALLISON explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anderson Douglas Hosey King Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Allison Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers Bradley Brannon G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clary Clemmons Cole Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hardee Hart Henderson Henegan Herbkersman Hicks Hill Hodges Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Long Lowe Lucas McCoy M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Nanney Neal Newton Norman Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Willis Yow
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 47 Part IB, Page 435, Section 84, Department of Transportation - Proviso 84.11, Horry-Georgetown Evacuation Route
Rep. HARDEE explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anderson King
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Anthony Atwater Ballentine Bedingfield Bernstein Bradley Brannon G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Chumley Clary Clemmons Clyburn Cole Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hardee Hart Henderson Henegan Hicks Hill Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy Knight Limehouse Loftis Long Lowe Lucas McCoy McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Murphy Nanney Neal Newton Norman Norrell Ott Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
ABSTENTION FROM VOTING
BASED ON POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below referenced election because of a potential conflict of interest and wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
Rep. Roger K. Kirby
Veto 48 Part IB, Page 406, Section 57, Judicial Department - Proviso 57.19, Active Retired Judges
Rep. PITTS explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of her Excellency, the Governor, to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
King Neal
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Ballentine Bamberg Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bradley Brannon G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Collins H. A. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Duckworth Erickson Felder Finlay Forrester Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Govan Hamilton Hart Hayes Henderson Herbkersman Hicks Hill Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Johnson Jordan Kennedy Kirby Knight Limehouse Loftis Long Lowe Lucas McCoy McKnight M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Nanney Newton Norman Norrell Ott Parks Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Ridgeway Riley Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Sandifer Simrill G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Tinkler Toole Weeks Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Yow
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
ABSTENTION FROM VOTING
BASED ON POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
Veto No. 20, Part IB, Page 372, Section 33, Department of Health and Human Services- Proviso 33.30, Healthcare Workforce Analysis
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
Rep. Todd Atwater
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto No. 20, Part IB, Page 372, Section 33, Department of Health and Human Services- Proviso 33.30, Healthcare Workforce Analysis
Veto No. 27, Part IB, Page 524, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (29), Prosecution Coordination Commission, SC Center for Fathers and Families
Veto No. 30, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(e), Department of Health and Human Services, Family Health Solutions of the Low Country- Low County Health Start
Veto No. 31, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(f), Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy Learner- Greenwood Program
Veto No. 32, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(d), Department of Health and Human Services, Osprey Village
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-740(C) because of representation of a client before a particular agency or commission by me or an individual or business with whom I am associated within the past year.
A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-745(B) and (C) because a contract for goods or services may be entered into within the next year with an agency, commission, board, department, or other entity funded through the general appropriation bill by myself, an individual with whom I am associated in partnership with or a business or partnership in which I have a greater than 5% interest.
Rep. Bruce W. Bannister
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto No. 20, Part IB, Page 372, Section 33, Department of Health and Human Services- Proviso 33.30, Healthcare Workforce Analysis
Veto No. 30, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(e), Department of Health and Human Services, Family Health Solutions of the Low Country- Low County Health Start
Veto No. 31, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(f), Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy Learner- Greenwood Program
Veto No. 32, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(d), Department of Health and Human Services, Osprey Village
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-745(B) and (C) because a contract for goods or services may be entered into within the next year with an agency, commission, board, department, or other entity funded through the general appropriation bill by myself, an individual with whom I am associated in partnership with or a business or partnership in which I have a greater than 5% interest.
Rep. Beth E. Bernstein
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto No. 48, Part IB, Page 406, Section 57, Judicial Department- Proviso 57.19, Active Retired Judges
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
Representative Gary E. Clary
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto No. 20, Part IB, Page 372, Section 33, Department of Health and Human Services- Proviso 33.30, Healthcare Workforce Analysis
Veto No. 27, Part IB, Page 524, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (29), Prosecution Coordination Commission, SC Center for Fathers and Families
Veto No. 30, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(e), Department of Health and Human Services, Family Health Solutions of the Low Country- Low County Health Start
Veto No. 31, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(f), Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy Learner- Greenwood Program
Veto No. 32, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(d), Department of Health and Human Services, Osprey Village
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-740(C) because of representation of a client before a particular agency or commission by me or an individual or business with whom I am associated within the past year.
A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-745(B) and (C) because a contract for goods or services may be entered into within the next year with an agency, commission, board, department, or other entity funded through the general appropriation bill by myself, an individual with whom I am associated in partnership with or a business or partnership in which I have a greater than 5% interest.
Rep. F. Gregory "Greg" Delleney
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto No. 48, Part IB, Page 406, Section 57, Judicial Department- Proviso 57.19, Active Retired Judges
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is: A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
Rep. Laurie Slade Funderburk
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto No. 20, Part IB, Page 372, Section 33, Department of Health and Human Services- Proviso 33.30, Healthcare Workforce Analysis
Veto No. 27, Part IB, Page 524, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (29), Prosecution Coordination Commission, SC Center for Fathers and Families
Veto No. 30, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(e), Department of Health and Human Services, Family Health Solutions of the Low Country- Low County Health Start
Veto No. 31, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(f), Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy Learner- Greenwood Program
Veto No. 32, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(d), Department of Health and Human Services, Osprey Village
Veto No. 48, Part IB, Page 406, Section 57, Judicial Department- Proviso 57.19, Active Retired Judges
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-740(C) because of representation of a client before a particular agency or commission by me or an individual or business with whom I am associated within the past year.
Rep. Jenny Horne
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto No. 27, Part IB, Page 524, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (29), Prosecution Coordination Commission, SC Center for Fathers and Families
Veto No. 48, Part IB, Page 406, Section 57, Judicial Department- Proviso 57.19, Active Retired Judges
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-740(C) because of representation of a client before a particular agency or commission by me or an individual or business with whom I am associated within the past year.
Rep. Peter McCoy
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto No. 27, Part IB, Page 524, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (29), Prosecution Coordination Commission, SC Center for Fathers and Families
Veto No. 30, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(e), Department of Health and Human Services, Family Health Solutions of the Low Country- Low County Health Start
Veto No. 31, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(f), Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy Learner- Greenwood Program
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-740(C) because of representation of a client before a particular agency or commission by me or an individual or business with whom I am associated within the past year.
Rep. Walton J. McLeod
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto No. 20, Part IB, Page 372, Section 33, Department of Health and Human Services- Proviso 33.30, Healthcare Workforce Analysis
Veto No. 27, Part IB, Page 524, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (29), Prosecution Coordination Commission, SC Center for Fathers and Families
Veto No. 30, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(e), Department of Health and Human Services, Family Health Solutions of the Low Country- Low County Health Start
Veto No. 31, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(f), Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy Learner- Greenwood Program
Veto No. 32, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(d), Department of Health and Human Services, Osprey Village
Veto No. 48, Part IB, Page 406, Section 57, Judicial Department- Proviso 57.19, Active Retired Judges
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
a. A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
b. A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-740(C) because of representation of a client before a particular agency or commission by me or an individual or business with whom I am associated within the past year.
c. A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-745(B) and (C) because a contract for goods or services may be entered into within the next year with an agency, commission, board, department, or other entity funded through the general appropriation bill by myself, an individual with whom I am associated in partnership with or a business or partnership in which I have a greater than 5% interest.
Rep. Christopher J. "Chris" Murphy
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below reference bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and I wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date:
R. 127, H. 3701, the Fiscal Year 2015-16 General Appropriations Act
Veto No. 30, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(e), Department of Health and Human Services, Family Health Solutions of the Low Country- Low County Health Start
Veto No. 31, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(f), Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy Learner- Greenwood Program
Veto No. 32, Part IB, Page 523, Section 118, Statewide Revenue; Proviso 118.14(B), Nonrecurring Revenue - Item (21)(d), Department of Health and Human Services, Osprey Village
The reason for abstaining on the above referenced legislation is:
a. A potential conflict of interest may exist in that an economic interest of myself, an immediate family member, or an individual or business with which I am associated may be affected in violation of S.C. Code Section 8-13-700(B).
b. A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-740(C) because of representation of a client before a particular agency or commission by me or an individual or business with whom I am associated within the past year.
c. A potential conflict may exist under S.C. Code Section 8-13-745(B) and (C) because a contract for goods or services may be entered into within the next year with an agency, commission, board, department, or other entity funded through the general appropriation bill by myself, an individual with whom I am associated in partnership with or a business or partnership in which I have a greater than 5% interest.
Rep. Leonidas "Leon" Stavrinakis
Rep. MCKNIGHT moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, which was agreed to.
Rep. MCKNIGHT moved that the House do now adjourn, which was agreed to.
Further proceedings were interrupted by adjournment, the pending question being consideration of Veto items.
Rep. ERICKSON moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 44 was overridden and the motion was noted.
At 5:08 p.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. WEEKS, adjourned in memory of Reginald D. English of Sumter, to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:16 P.M.