South Carolina General Assembly
121st Session, 2015-2016
Journal of the House of Representatives

Monday, July 6, 2015
(Statewide Session)

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.

MOTION ADOPTED

Rep. WEEKS moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Reginald D. English of Sumter, which was agreed to.

R. 127, H. 3701--ORDERED PRINTED IN THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

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.

Controlling the Growth of Government

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

Rejecting Irresponsible Budgeting Practices

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.

Rejecting New Earmarks

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.

Higher Education Earmarks

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.

Earmarks for Health and Social Service Providers

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.

Good Government

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.

Excessive Spending

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.

Impairing Service Delivery - Micromanagement

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.

Housekeeping

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.

Old-fashioned Pork

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.

Local Earmarks

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.

Earmarks for Museums, Historical, and Cultural Facilities

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.

Maintaining Unified Economic Development Efforts

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:

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

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.

R. 130, H. 4230--ORDERED PRINTED IN THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

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.

SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE IN CHAIR

ROLL CALL

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

STATEMENT OF ATTENDANCE

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

Total Present--120

SPEAKER IN CHAIR

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

The SPEAKER granted Rep. HIXON a leave of absence for the day due to a long-scheduled, prior commitment.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

The SPEAKER granted Rep. HIOTT a leave of absence for the day due to previously scheduled church mission trip.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

The SPEAKER granted Rep. BERNSTEIN a temporary leave of absence to attend a funeral.

CO-SPONSOR REMOVED

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."

CO-SPONSOR REMOVED

Bill Number:   H. 4093 (Word version)
Date:   REMOVE:
06/30/15   MCEACHERN

SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE IN CHAIR

R. 127, H. 3701--THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL

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 NO. 1-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 80; Nays 30

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

Total--80

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

Total--30

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

VETO NO. 2-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 85; Nays 27

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

Total--85

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

Total--27

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

VETO NO. 3-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 87; Nays 26

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

Total--87

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

Total--26

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

VETO NO. 4-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 68; Nays 45

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

Total--68

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

Total--45

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

VETO NO. 5-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 65; Nays 51

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

Total--65

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

Total--51

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

VETO NO. 6-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 102; Nays 16

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

Total--102

Those who voted in the negative are:

Atwater                Bradley                Collins
Daning                 Delleney               Felder
Hill                   Johnson                Long
McCoy                  Norman                 Pitts
Quinn                  Rivers                 Southard
Toole

Total--16

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

VETO NO. 7-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 86; Nays 27

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

Total--86

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

Total--27

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

VETO NO. 8-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 86; Nays 26

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

Total--86

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

Total--26

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

VETO NO. 9-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 101; Nays 14

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

Total--101

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allison                Ballentine             Bradley
Collins                Felder                 Henderson
Hicks                  Hill                   Long
Nanney                 Norman                 Rivers
Southard               Stringer

Total--14

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

VETO NO. 10-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 98; Nays 15

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

Total--98

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine             Bedingfield            Bradley
Collins                Daning                 Felder
Henderson              Hill                   Long
Nanney                 Norman                 Rivers
Southard               Stringer               Thayer

Total--15

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

VETO NO. 11-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 91; Nays 22

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

Total--91

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

Total--22

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

VETO NO. 12-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 104; Nays 9

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

Total--104

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bradley                Collins                Crosby
Daning                 Henderson              Long
Nanney                 Norman                 Rivers

Total--9

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

VETO NO. 13-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 105; Nays 12

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

Total--105

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bradley                Collins                Crosby
Daning                 Henderson              Hill
Long                   McCoy                  Nanney
Norman                 Rivers                 Thayer

Total--12

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

VETO NO. 14-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 105; Nays 8

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

Total--105

Those who voted in the negative are:

Chumley                Collins                Hill
Long                   Nanney                 Norman
Putnam                 Thayer

Total--8

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

SPEAKER IN CHAIR

VETO NO. 15-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 104; Nays 8

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

Total--104

Those who voted in the negative are:

Collins                Hill                   Long
Nanney                 Putnam                 Southard
Thayer                 Toole

Total--8

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

VETO NO. 16-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 107; Nays 8

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

Total--107

Those who voted in the negative are:

Collins                Hill                   Long
Nanney                 Norman                 Putnam
Southard               Thayer

Total--8

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

VETO NO. 17-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 107; Nays 10

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

Total--107

Those who voted in the negative are:

Chumley                Collins                Hill
Long                   Nanney                 Norman
Putnam                 Southard               Thayer
Toole

Total--10

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

VETO NO. 18-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 106; Nays 10

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

Total--106

Those who voted in the negative are:

Chumley                Collins                Hill
Johnson                Long                   Nanney
Norman                 Putnam                 Southard
Thayer

Total--10

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

VETO NO. 19-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 103; Nays 9

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

Total--103

Those who voted in the negative are:

Chumley                Collins                Hill
Long                   Nanney                 Norman
Putnam                 Southard               Thayer

Total--9

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

VETO NO. 20-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 78; Nays 25

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

Total--78

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

Total--25

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

VETO NO. 21-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 102; Nays 16

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

Total--102

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

Total--16

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

VETO NO. 22-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 90; Nays 26

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

Total--90

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

Total--26

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

VETO NO. 23-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 86; Nays 28

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

Total--86

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

Total--28

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

SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE IN CHAIR

VETO NO. 24-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 82; Nays 32

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

Total--82

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

Total--32

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

VETO NO. 25-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 84; Nays 29

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

Total--84

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

Total--29

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

VETO NO. 26-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 80; Nays 31

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

Total--80

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

Total--31

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

VETO NO. 27-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 90; Nays 14

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

Total--90

Those who voted in the negative are:

Atwater                Bedingfield            Chumley
Crosby                 Felder                 Hill
Kennedy                Norman                 Putnam
Quinn                  Rivers                 Simrill
G. M. Smith            Thayer

Total--14

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

STATEMENT FOR THE JOURNAL

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 NO. 28-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 8; Nays 94

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Gilliard               King                   Limehouse
Robinson-Simpson       Sottile                Stavrinakis
Tinkler                Williams

Total--8

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

Total--94

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

STATEMENT FOR THE JOURNAL

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 NO. 29-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 108; Nays 0

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

Total--108

Those who voted in the negative are:

Total--0

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

VETO NO. 30-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 34; Nays 56

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

Total--34

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

Total--56

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

VETO NO. 31-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 46; Nays 53

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

Total--46

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

Total--53

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

RECORD FOR VOTING

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

RECORD FOR VOTING

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

VETO NO. 30-- MOTION TO RECONSIDER TABLED

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.

VETO NO. 31-- MOTION TO RECONSIDER TABLED

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.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE granted Rep. BANNISTER a leave of absence for the remainder of the day due to family medical reasons.

VETO NO. 32-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 63; Nays 41

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

Total--63

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

Total--41

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

SPEAKER IN CHAIR

VETO NO. 33-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 83; Nays 27

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

Total--83

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

Total--27

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

RECORD FOR VOTING

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 NO. 34-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 51; Nays 61

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

Total--51

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

Total--61

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

VETO NO. 34--MOTION TO RECONSIDER TABLED

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 NO. 35-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 2; Nays 95

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

King                   Whipper

Total--2

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

Total--95

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

VETO NO. 36-- DEBATE ADJOURNED

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 NO. 37-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 87; Nays 24

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

Total--87

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

Total--24

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

VETO NO. 38-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 82; Nays 32

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

Total--82

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

Total--32

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

VETO NO. 39-- DEBATE ADJOURNED

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.

SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE IN CHAIR

VETO NO. 40-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 109; Nays 9

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

Total--109

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allison                Daning                 Hamilton
Henderson              Hill                   Nanney
Norman                 Putnam                 Thayer

Total--9

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

VETO NO. 41-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 32; Nays 73

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

Total--32

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

Total--73

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

VETO NO. 42-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 88; Nays 24

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

Total--88

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

Total--24

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

VETO NO. 43-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 34; Nays 72

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

Total--34

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

Total--72

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

VETO NO. 44-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 97; Nays 18

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

Total--97

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

Total--18

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

VETO NO. 45-- OVERRIDDEN

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:

Yeas 100; Nays 15

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

Total--100

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine             Bedingfield            Bingham
Felder                 Huggins                Kennedy
Long                   Nanney                 Norman
Putnam                 Quinn                  Rivers
Simrill                G. M. Smith            Thayer

Total--15

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

STATEMENT FOR HOUSE JOURNAL

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:

Veto No. 45

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 NO. 46-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 5; Nays 105

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Anderson               Douglas                Hosey
King                   Williams

Total--5

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

Total--105

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

VETO NO. 47-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 2; Nays 99

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Anderson               King

Total--2

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

Total--99

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

STATEMENT FOR HOUSE JOURNAL

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:

Veto No. 47

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 NO. 48-- SUSTAINED

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:

Yeas 2; Nays 104

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

King                   Neal

Total--2

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

Total--104

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

STATEMENTS FOR HOUSE JOURNAL

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

HOUSE TO MEET AT 10:00 A.M. TOMORROW

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.

MOTION NOTED

Rep. ERICKSON moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 44 was overridden and the motion was noted.

ADJOURNMENT

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.