| Printed Page 7490, May 31 | Printed Page 7510, June 1 |

Sturkie (Present) Nay

Huff (Absent) Aye

Rep. HASKINS moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison          Baker            Beatty
Brown, H.        Cato             Cooper
Davenport        Fair             Felder
Harris, P.       Harrison         Haskins
Jaskwhich        Jennings         Keegan
Kelley           Kennedy          Klauber
Koon             Quinn            Rhoad
Riser            Sharpe           Shissias
Smith, D.        Smith, R.        Snow
Vaughn           Wells            White
Wilder, J.       Wilkes           Witherspoon
Wright

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.  Alexander, T.C.  Askins
Bailey, G.       Bailey, J.       Barber

Baxley           Boan             Breeland
Brown, G.        Byrd             Canty
Carnell          Chamblee         Clyborne
Cobb-Hunter      Corning          Cromer
Delleney         Farr             Fulmer
Gamble           Gonzales         Govan
Graham           Hallman          Harrell
Harrelson        Harris, J.       Harvin
Harwell          Hines            Hodges
Holt             Houck            Hutson
Keyserling       Kinon            Kirsh
Lanford          Law              Marchbanks
Martin           Mattos           McAbee
McCraw           McElveen         McKay
McLeod           McMahand         Meacham
Moody-Lawrence   Neal             Neilson
Richardson       Robinson         Rogers
Rudnick          Scott            Sheheen
Simrill          Spearman         Stille
Stoddard         Stone            Sturkie
Thomas           Townsend         Trotter
Tucker           Waites           Waldrop
Walker           Whipper          Wilder, D.
Wilkins          Williams         Wofford
Worley           Young, A.

So, the House refused to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole.

Rep. FELDER inquired about the question being presented to the House.

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS stated that the motion was to instruct the Conferees to exclude from the Conference Report any extension of the Barnwell facility for out of region waste after July 1, 1994.

Rep. FELDER: "Mr. Speaker, to better define that so that we can get a true sense of the House, I would move to divide the question into two parts, one would be nonrecurring, to be used in a nonrecurring matter and the other would be to be used in a recurring matter. That would more

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS: "Mr. Felder, if the House instructs the Conferees to exclude any extension, then you don't get in the question of whether it is nonrecurring or recurring. Shouldn't you ask the first question and resolve it, and if the answer is no, we do want to include Barnwell, then the second question would be if that was for recurring or nonrecurring?"

Rep. FELDER: "The way this is going, there is an indication here that if you vote for that motion without that, then the impression is that you are voting for what the Senate did and that is not the question. The question should be whether or not if we want to spend the money that would come from this extension and how we would want them to expend it. That is what our Conferees need."

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS: "Wouldn't you resolve the dilemma by simply making another motion after the House answers this question and addresses this motion, and phrase it however you want to?"

Rep. FELDER: "I just feel like if it were phrased differently, it would not have the implication that I think is there."

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS: "Do you have a Point of Order?"

Rep. FELDER: "Yes sir, I made a motion to divide the question."

Rep. SHEHEEN raised the Point of Order that the motion to divide the question was out of order as the question was not divisible.

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS asked if anyone else would like to be heard on the Point of Order.

Rep. BAKER stated that he believed that was the call of the Chair to decide if the question was divisible or not.

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS stated that he was getting ready to call it and asked if anyone else would like to be heard.

Rep. ROGERS stated that even if the issue were divisible, that it was not part of the question that was put to the House and it was improper to divide it on that basis.

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS stated that the motion was not divisible the way it was phrased and he sustained the Point of Order.

Rep. HASKINS raised the Point of Order that there was nothing in the Rules of the House that permitted the procedure that the House was

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS: "Are you citing a Rule for that Point of Order?"

Rep. HASKINS: "There is no Rule that permits the House to take motions from the floor outside of the Motion Period. These types of motions are limited to the Motion Period only or to the Committee of the Whole."

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS: "You are saying then that the Chairman of a Conference Committee cannot come back to this Body and ask for instructions without going into the Committee of the Whole. Is that your Point?"

Rep. HASKINS: "That is exactly my Point. The Conference Report may be presented and the Conference Report may be either approved or rejected by this Body, but to take votes, to get a sense of the House, every precedent in the Journal takes this House and goes into a Committee of the Whole because there are no provisions in our Rules to take a vote and a sense of the House outside the Committee of the Whole. We are acting as a Committee right now."

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS: "Mr. Boan came before us and he asked that we give him a sense, some direction, and you are saying that the only way to do that is we have to resolve ourselves into a Committee of the Whole. Is that your Point of Order?"

Rep. HASKINS: "That is correct. Otherwise, we would be violating our Rules, we would be taking up an issue that is not provided for in the Rules and not on our calendar and we would be voting on motions from the floor with no Bill pending, motions of advisory nature and the precedent is that that can only be done in the Committee of the Whole."

Rep. BAKER: "Under Mason's, under Committee of the Whole, if you look under Section 657 on page 464, it says to discuss a matter, that the

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS: "Are you referring to Section 657?"

Rep. BAKER: "Yes sir, in particularly the last sentence."

Rep. SHEHEEN: "Mr. Speaker, Mr. Boan interrupted the normal orders of the day as is provided for under our House Rules for a report of the Conference Committee. He is not required to give a final report and ask for an up or down vote on that final report. The precedence of this House shows that we have frequently gone into discussions on Conference Reports. We have frequently heard from appropriations committees conference reports and at that time, have taken votes on the sense of the House. As you well know, going into the Committee of the Whole, the House cannot operate in the same way as it normally does because it cannot order roll calls and under Mason's, cannot instruct anybody. It can't take binding votes. It can only make a recommendation to the full House which either can accept the report of the Committee or not accept the report of the Committee. We are not violating any procedures, and probably, but who is Mr. Haskins to say that we are once he has taken part in it so vigorously?"

Rep. BAKER: "I would take exception to Mr. Sheheen. I have been here eight years and every time that we have had a Conference Committee Report that has been controversial, the way the House has given its sense has been to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole. Specifically, the capital gains debate approximately six years ago when we went into the Committee of the Whole, and also two years ago when we were debating this very issue, we went into the Committee of the Whole. So, I think Mr. Sheheen is correct when he says that Mr. Boan had interrupted with his Conference Report but I think he is incorrect to say that we have expressed a sense of this Body without going into a Committee of the Whole in response to a Conference Report."

Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that we already have a sense of the House based on the motion to table Mr. Sheheen's motion just a moment ago. I believe it was around eight or nine votes difference in it, and I believe that right now they have a sense of the House."

Rep. HASKINS: "To reiterate one item and point out Section 650 of Mason's, the Point of going into the Committee of the Whole, is to allow this Body to take nonbinding votes, to loosen the Rules that we operate under. There is no rule in our Rules that allows the House, the members of the House in session, to take nonbinding votes. Every vote that this Body takes in session is binding. There is no provision to allow this Body to take nonbinding votes and just advise members of our Conference Committee except by going into the Committee of the Whole where the rules are loosened. Section 650 says the purpose of the Committee of the Whole is to permit more free and informal discussion of any question that could be had in a deliberative body acting under its ordinary rules of procedure. And you go on in the following sections, and it explains the rules for a Committee of the Whole and those rules allow for nonbinding sense of the House votes, but our rules don't allow for that kind of a vote. They don't allow us to take nonbinding sense of the House votes by the House in session. The whole point of that, Mr. Speaker, within the Committee of the Whole, you are not allowed to take roll call votes and the votes are not recorded because they are not binding votes. And it would be inappropriate for this Body to be taking roll call votes on nonbinding matters. That is why we have a Committee of the Whole. That is the purpose of putting that in our Rules. That is the way it has always been done and to change the Rules now, to take this vote and loosen the Rules of the House without going into the Committee of the Whole is to do an injustice to this institution and to the Rules under which this institution operates."

Rep. QUINN: "I do this somewhat reluctantly because I voted with the Speaker on this issue, but aren't we arguing the same issue we had during the budget debate? We're altering the calendar. Clearly the Motion Period is the only time that motions are allowed and I am afraid that, if we set a precedent, then we can actually direct conferees; we don't have a free conference request, we don't have any bills to consider, we are right in the middle of the calendar with a situation, and there is nothing to make a motion on. We were informing; we were just giving information, more than anything else."

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS: "Mr. Felder, you raised the Point? No, Mr. Haskins raised the Point."

Rep. FELDER: "I have one after that."

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS sustained the Point of Order.

Rep. SHEHEEN moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. HASKINS raised the Point of Order that the motion to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole was over all other motions.

Rep. SHEHEEN stated that the Rules stated the order of the motions and their priorities and they clearly stated that the motion to adjourn was the highest motion.

SPEAKER Pro Tempore WILKINS overruled the Point of Order.

The question then recurred to the motion that the House do now adjourn.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.  Alexander, T.C.  Anderson
Askins           Bailey, G.       Bailey, J.
Barber           Baxley           Boan
Breeland         Brown, G.        Brown, J.
Byrd             Canty            Carnell
Chamblee         Cobb-Hunter      Delleney
Farr             Felder           Hallman
Harrell          Harrelson        Harris, J.
Harvin           Harwell          Hines
Hodges           Holt             Houck
Hutson           Inabinett        Keyserling
Kinon            Kirsh            Lanford
Martin           Mattos           McAbee
McElveen         McMahand         Moody-Lawrence
Neal             Neilson          Richardson
Rogers           Rudnick          Scott
Sheheen          Spearman         Stille
Stoddard         Stone            Sturkie
Thomas           Townsend         Tucker

Waites           Waldrop          Whipper
White            Williams         Worley

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allison          Baker            Beatty
Brown, H.        Cato             Clyborne
Cooper           Corning          Cromer
Davenport        Fair             Fulmer
Gamble           Gonzales         Govan
Graham           Harris, P.       Harrison
Haskins          Jaskwhich        Jennings
Keegan           Kelley           Kennedy
Koon             Law              Marchbanks
McCraw           McKay            Meacham
Quinn            Rhoad            Riser
Robinson         Sharpe           Shissias
Simrill          Smith, D.        Smith, R.
Snow             Trotter          Vaughn
Walker           Wells            Wilder, D.
Wilder, J.       Wilkes           Wilkins
Witherspoon      Wofford          Wright

So, the motion to adjourn was agreed to.

The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:

H. 5222 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING THE FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION, THE LANDMARK UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION WHICH EFFECTIVELY ENDED RACIAL SEGREGATION IN THE NATION'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

H. 5251 -- Rep. Boan: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CONGRATULATIONS AND BEST WISHES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO MR. STACY

H. 5252 -- Rep. R. Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE BETTY JOAN REVELISE VARNER ON THE OCCASION OF HER RETIREMENT FROM THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

H. 5253 -- Rep. R. Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE LOIS RIVERS WYLOT ON THE OCCASION OF HER RETIREMENT FROM THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

H. 5254 -- Rep. Walker: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE LANDRUM HIGH SCHOOL LADY CARDINALS OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY ON WINNING THE CLASS A SOFTBALL STATE CHAMPIONSHIP FOR 1994.

Indicates Matter Stricken Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 10:00 A.M.

Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:

Cause us, Lord God, to see this day as another gift from your good and benevolent hand - a gift to us not because we have deserved it or earned it, but as a free gift because of Your endless and unrestrained love for us as Your children. Cause us, then, to use this day to the fullest as we seize every golden hour and every diamond minute as You would have them used. And as we strive to climb the ladder of success, God forbid that we should discover that "our ladder is leaning against the wrong wall." Make us as productive today as we dream for tomorrow.

Heavenly Father, keep us diligent and steadfast. 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 yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

Rep. MARCHBANKS moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Mrs. Opal Lewis of Easley, which was agreed to.

The following was received. Columbia, S.C., May 31, 1994 Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Senators Saleeby, Greg Smith and Courtney of the Committee of Conference on the part of the Senate on S. 861: S. 861 -- Senator Greg Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-75-310(5), CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO WINDSTORM AND HAIL INSURANCE, SO AS TO

| Printed Page 7490, May 31 | Printed Page 7510, June 1 |