Category Archives: How they voted

Those who voted ‘aye,’ and those who voted ‘nay’ on flag

Y’all can get this from various other sources, but it took me a few minutes, so for your convenience, here’s who voted “aye” in the S.C. House on moving toward taking the flag down:

And here are those who voted “nay,” those who were absent, and those who just did not vote:

The Senate pass the amendment by a voice vote. The only ones making a point of registering their dissent were:

Lee Bright, R-Spartanburg
Tom Corbin, R-Greenville
Danny Verdin, R-Laurens

People used to say of the eccentricities of the Lowcountry that “there’s something in the water” down there in Charleston. I wonder what they’re drinking in the Upstate…

We are the 10 percent! The tyranny of a minority

I do not profess to be some sort of expert on the internal politics of Occupy Columbia, but I did hear something last night that startled me a bit.

I had wondered how on Earth they decided to do anything without acknowledged leaders. So after the “We Dare You to Arrest Us” rally was over last night, I moseyed over to eavesdrop a bit on their “general assembly.” And I heard what you can hear on the clip above.

I thought at the time maybe I had heard it out of context. As you can hear on the video, someone was saying hi to me at the beginning of this, which distracted me (you can hear me mumbling, “Hey. Hey, how are ya?”). But as I listen again, it seems pretty open and shut — any minority over 10 percent can block any decision.

As a guy who has for years fought efforts in our Legislature to make ordinary decisions subject to a supermajority of two-thirds — meaning one-third plus one is in charge — I was rather taken aback by this.

Walk me through this, please… This is a group that is indignant that, according to its legend, 1 percent controls things and 99 percent are victims, right? Yet this group lets 10 percent (plus one) make decisions for the 90 percent?

So it’s 1 percent good, 10 percent bad? Or what?

Maybe there’s a logical explanation. I’ll try to remember to ask next time I see some of these folks. They were kind of scarce around the State House when I looked today…

By contrast, Barrett LIKES this bill — the one with all the fixin’s

Earlier this week, we had on our op-ed page, all ready to go, a piece from gubernatorial wannabe Gresham Barrett about how keen he is on nuclear power. That was all well and good, but it was neither here nor there (I can keep the pretentious figures of speech coming all day) when it came to the issue of the moment, which was as that piece was being put on the page, Mr. Barrett was stepping out as the only member of the S.C. delegation to vote against the bailout, I mean rescue, bill.

Seemed sort of, well, off-topic to me. So I pulled the piece (you’ll see it online Saturday) and got Cindi to ask his office for a column explaining his vote. They expressed interest, and the next day we held space on the page past our deadline, but it didn’t show. Which was a shame because it would have run the same day as this editorial, which would have given you a sort of point-counterpoint on the subject.

It never did show. But today I get this via e-mail:

Barrett Releases Statement on Upcoming Vote concerning Economic Recovery Plan

Washington, DC – Congressman Gresham Barrett (SC, 3) released the following statement regarding the vote on the updated economic recovery package expected on the House floor tomorrow:

“Today we are faced with what Warren Buffet called an ‘economic Pearl Harbor’ that includes the ugly reality of an across the board credit freeze. The ability for companies to meet payroll and fund activities is threatened, and let’s be clear I’m not talking about Wall Street businesses, but 3rd district employers. Whether it is a small business that may have to close its doors, or major corporations employing thousands of my constituents, jobs are at risk. If Congress does not act the effects will be serious for American small business, families and consumers.

“Monday’s bill relied purely on government activity failing to consider fundamental free market principles that I believe must be part of any solution. I was aware of the gravity of the situation then as I am now, but was optimistic that working with relevant parties and my constituents through the legislative process we could produce a better bill. This legislation contains proven free market principles like tax relief and regulatory changes that will move our economy forward helping to mitigate the pain on Main Street. While this bill continues to contain a number of provisions that I oppose, I believe we are at the end of the legislative process and action is required.”
###

OK, so he understands it’s an "economic Pearl Harbor," but he didn’t feel like shooting back at the Mitsubishis on Monday. Now that the plan’s been beefed up with lots of fixin’s, so it’s not $700 billion, but $810 billion — more than I make in a year, for those keeping score at home — he likes it. Of course, he covers himself on that, with his airy "While this bill continues to contain a number of provisions that I
oppose, I believe we are at the end of the legislative process and
action is required."

So glad we’ve got your permission now, Gresham. Can we get on with the saving-the-country thing? Thanks.

How they voted on (sort of) restructuring

As outrageous activity goes, this isn’t nearly as much so as the failure to overrided Sanford’s veto on the cigarette tax. It’s just sort of run-of-the-mill pitiful, what you come to expect from our General Assembly.

This note sent to me by Cindi describes how Senators failed to keep alive the modest Vincent Sheheen proposal to sorta, kinda move in the general direction of rational structural (and functional) reform of state government:

Here’s Tuesday’s Senate vote on a motion to set the legislative restructuring/Department of Administration bill (about which we wrote this morning) for special order. It needed a two-thirds vote but fell short. The bill will not be debated unless it is set for special order.

THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE MOTION PERIOD.

MOTION FAILS

H. 3590 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=3590&session=117> ( Word <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3590.doc> version) — Reps. G.R. Smith, Bowen, Duncan, Haskins, Littlejohn, Lowe, Bedingfield and Stavrinakis: A BILL TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 2007" INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO AMEND SECTION 1-30-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AGENCIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT BY ADDING THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION; BY ADDING SECTION 1-30-125 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AS AN AGENCY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO BE HEADED BY A DIRECTOR APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND TO TRANSFER TO THIS NEWLY CREATED DEPARTMENT CERTAIN OFFICES AND DIVISIONS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, AND OTHER AGENCIES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE ABOVE; BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 1 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS A SEPARATE DIVISION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PURPOSE, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND AUTHORITY OF THE STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL, TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF "EXECUTIVE AGENCIES" FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT AND INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS RELATING TO IMPROPER OR UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY WITHIN EXECUTIVE AGENCIES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT; BY ADDING ARTICLE 6 TO CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 1 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE DIVISION OF THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION TO BE HEADED BY THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THE DIVISION; TO CREATE A JOINT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REVIEW COMMITTEE, AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS CASE REVIEW PANEL, AND AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ARCHITECTURE OVERSIGHT PANEL AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEE AND PANELS; TO AMEND SECTION 11-35-1580, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENTS, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT OFFICE; TO AMEND SECTIONS 1-10-10, 1-11-20, AS AMENDED, 1-11-22, 1-11-55, 1-11-56, 1-11-58, 1-11-65, 1-11-67, 1-11-70, 1-11-80, 1-11-90, 1-11-100, 1-11-110, 1-11-180, 1-11-220, 1-11-225, 1-11-250, 1-11-260, 1-11-270, 1-11-280, 1-11-290, 1-11-300, 1-11-310, 1-11-315, 1-11-320, 1-11-335, 1-11-340, 1-11-435, 2-13-240, AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 3; 10-1-10, 10-1-30, AS AMENDED, 10-1-40, 10-1-130, 10-1-190, AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 10, 10-11-50, AS AMENDED, 10-11-90, 10-11-110, 10-11-140, 10-11-330; 11-9-610, 11-9-620, 11-9-630, 11-35-3810, 11-35-3820, 11-35-3830, 11-35-3840, 13-7-30, 13-7-830, ALL AS AMENDED, 48-46-30, AS AMENDED, 48-46-40, AS AMENDED, 48-46-50, 48-46-60, 48-46-90, 44-53-530, AS AMENDED, AND 44-96-140; AND TO ADD SECTION 1-11-185 ALL RELATING TO VARIOUS AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT PROVISIONS SO AS TO CONFORM THEM TO THE ABOVE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO THE NEW DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OR TO SUPPLEMENT SUCH PROVISIONS.

Senator MARTIN moved to set H. 3590 for Special Order.

Senator MARTIN explained the Bill.

Senator MALLOY spoke on the Bill.

The "ayes" and "nay" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

AYES

Alexander                Bryant                   Campbell
Campsen                Ceips                   Cleary
Courson                Cromer                   Fair
Grooms                   Hayes                   Jackson
Lourie                   Martin                   Massey
McConnell                Peeler                   Rankin
Reese*                   Ritchie                Ryberg
Scott                   Setzler                Sheheen
Thomas                   Verdin

Total–27

NAYS

Anderson                Drummond                Ford
Hawkins                Hutto                   Knotts
Land                   Leatherman             Leventis
Malloy                   Matthews                McGill
O’Dell                   Patterson                Pinckney
Short                   Williams

Total–17

*This Senator was not present in the Chamber at the time the vote was taken and the vote was recorded by leave of the Senate, with unanimous consent.

The necessary two-thirds vote having not been received the motion failed.

How they voted on cigarette tax

Trying to catch up with messages and such, I have no time to comment right now on the inexcusable, unconscionable, reprehensible vote to uphold Gov. Mark Sanford’s indefensible veto of the cigarette tax (beyond reminding you of what I’ve said over and over — how the money is spent is secondary, far secondary, to cutting teen smoking by raising the price, and there was NO excuse not to do that). But until I DO have time, here’s how those no-account cusses (and the rest of them) voted:

{BC-SC-XGR-Cigarette Tax-Roll Call,0405}
{Cigarette Tax-Roll Call}
{By The Associated Press}=
The 54-57 roll call by which the South Carolina House voted to sustain a veto on a 50 cent-a-pack cigarette tax increase. A two-thirds vote was required to override the veto.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to override the veto and "no" vote was a vote to sustain the veto.
Voting "yes" were 40 Democrats and 14 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 4 Democrats and 53 Republicans.
Not voting were 7 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

{Democrats Voting Yes}
Alexander, Florence; Allen, Greenville; Anderson, Georgetown; Anthony, Union; Bales, Eastover; Bowers, Brunson; Branham, Lake City; Brantley, Ridgeland; Breeland, Charleston; G. Brown, Bishopville; R. Brown, Hollywood; Clyburn, Aiken; Cobb-Hunter, Orangeburg; Funderburk, Camden; Govan, Orangeburg; Hart, Columbia; Harvin, Summerton; Hodges, Green Pond; Howard, Columbia; Jefferson, Pineville; Jennings, Bennettsville; Kennedy, Greeleyville; Knight, St. George; Mack, North Charleston; McLeod, Little Mountain; Miller, Pawleys Island; Mitchell, Spartanburg; J.H. Neal, Hopkins; J.M. Neal, Kershaw; Ott, St. Matthews; Parks, Greenwood; Rutherford, Columbia; Scott, Columbia; Sellers, Denmark; F.N. Smith, Greenville; J.E. Smith, Columbia; Stavrinakis, Charleston; Vick, Chesterfield; Weeks, Sumter; Williams, Darlington;

{Republicans Voting Yes}
Ballentine, Irmo; Cotty, Columbia; Crawford, Florence; Dantzler, Goose Creek; Gullick, Lake Wylie; Hiott, Pickens; Huggins, Columbia; Mahaffey, Lyman; Owens, Pickens; Pinson, Greenwood; Rice, Easley; Scarborough, Charleston; Skelton, Six Mile; Whitmire, Walhalla;

{Democrats Voting No}
Battle, Nichols; Kirsh, Clover; Moss, Gaffney; Neilson, Darlington;

{Republicans Voting No}
Bannister, Greenville; Barfield, Conway; Bedingfield, Mauldin; Bingham, West Columbia; Bowen, Anderson; Brady, Columbia; Cato, Travelers Rest; Chalk, Hilton Head Island; Clemmons, Myrtle Beach; Cooper, Piedmont; Daning, Goose Creek; Delleney, Chester; Duncan, Clinton; Edge, North Myrtle Beach; Erickson, Beaufort; Frye, Batesburg-Leesville; Gambrell, Honea Path; Hagood, Mt. Pleasant; Haley, Lexington; Hamilton, Taylors; Hardwick, Surfside Beach; Harrell, Charleston; Harrison, Columbia; Haskins, Greenville; Herbkersman, Bluffton; Kelly, Woodruff; Leach, Greer; Littlejohn, Spartanburg; Loftis, Greenville; Lowe, Florence; Lucas, Hartsville; Merrill, Daniel Island; Mulvaney, Indian Land; Perry, Aiken; E.H. Pitts, Lexington; M.A. Pitts, Laurens; Sandifer, Seneca; Shoopman, Greer; Simrill, Rock Hill; D.C. Smith, North Augusta; G.M. Smith, Sumter; G.R. Smith, Simpsonville; J.R. Smith, Langley; Stewart, Aiken; Talley, Spartanburg; Taylor, Laurens; Thompson, Anderson; Toole, West Columbia; Umphlett, Moncks Corner; Walker, Landrum; White, Anderson; Witherspoon, Conway; Young, Summerville;

{Those Not Voting}
Democrats: Agnew, Abbeville; Coleman, Winnsboro; Hayes, Hamer; Hosey, Barnwell; Moody-Lawrence, Rock Hill; Phillips, Gaffney; Whipper, North Charleston;
Republicans: Davenport, Boiling Springs; Hutson, Summerville; Limehouse, Charleston; W.D. Smith, Spartanburg; Spires, Pelion; Viers, Myrtle Beach;

You might think I should praise those who voted to override, but I won’t — anyone, regardless of political philosophy, should do what they did. To vote to sustain the veto was beneath contempt.

How they voted on the cigarette tax

Here’s the Senate vote to pass H.3567, which increases cigarette taxes by 50 cents per pack, with half the revenue going to expand Medicaid coverage, and half to give tax credits to low-income workers to help them purchase medical insurance.

Passage of the bill (H.3567):
Ayes 33; Nays 11; Abstain 1

AYES
Alexander       Anderson             Ceips
Cleary             Cromer                Drummond
Elliott             Fair                      Ford
Gregory          Hayes                   Hutto
Jackson          Knotts                Land *
Leatherman    Leventis             Lourie
Malloy             Martin                Matthews
McGill             O’Dell                   Patterson *
Pinckney          Rankin                Reese
Scott                Setzler                Sheheen *
Short                Thoma                Williams
Total–33

NAYS
Campsen          Courson             Grooms
Hawkins          Massey                McConnell
Peeler             Ritchie                Ryberg
Vaughn             Verdin
Total–11

ABSTAIN
Bryant
Total–1

*These Senators were not present in the Chamber at the time the vote was taken and the votes were recorded by leave of the Senate, with unanimous consent.

Cindi, whom we can thank for looking up the above while I was in yet another candidate interview, says other votes that might interest you would include:
1. Amendment P-1, to raise the cigarette tax by $1; tabled 31-13
2. Amendment P-4a, remove the provision that automatically increases
the tax each year by the rate of medical inflation. The Senate refused
to table that amendment 24-18, and then passed it on a voice vote.
Senators who voted "aye" voted to eliminate the inflation index.
These votes can be found in the Senate Journals of May 7 (P-1) and May 8 (P-4a). Go to http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/sjournal.htm to find the Journals, and then search for the amendments.)

The senators’ excuses for being MIA on Mukasey

Here is something I meant to post yesterday, but didn’t have time after I finally got the info I needed.

Friday morning, I was reading up on Mukasey’s confirmation the night before, when I noticed that not one of the senators running for president had recorded a vote. Since I still needed a topic for my Sunday column, I thought this might be it. I decided to put each of their campaigns on the spot, and write on the basis of the responses I got.

So I e-mailed contacts at each of the five campaigns. Under the heading, "Where was Sen. (blank)?" I wrote:

(contact name),

Why was Sen. (blank) (along with all the other presidential contenders)
recorded as "not-voting" on the Mukasey nomination last night? What was
more important? And what was the senator’s position on the question of
whether he should have been nominated?

— Brad

Unfortunately, the replies were slow coming in. The first was from B.J. Boling with John McCain at 11:51 a.m.:

Hi Mr. Warthen-

Senator McCain’s policy is to be present when his vote would affect the
outcome. When Sen. Feinstein and Schumer decided to confirm Mukasey it
became clear McCain’s vote wouldn’t change the outcome. He has clearly
supported Mukasey’s nomination. (Please see Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham’s letter below.) Senator McCain was receiving the endorsement of
Sen. Brownback in IA.

Thanks
BJ

I think BJ was confused; the Brownback endorsement was the day before. Anyway, I didn’t hear from the next campaign — Joe Biden’s — until 2:47 p.m.:

Brad:

Tried to reach you by phone to discuss but got your voice mail so thought I would respond my e-mail.

Don’t know exactly where Senator Biden was late yesterday when the
Mukasey nomination came up on the Senate floor. However, Senator
Biden had expressed his strong opposition to Judge Mukasey’s
confirmation (link to his statement…) and voted against
reporting the nomination out of the Judiciary Committee. Further,
Senator Biden has previously indicated that he would not miss a vote in
which his vote would determine the outcome. Obviously, the Mukasey
vote was not close giving the fact that six Democrats had announced
their support for Judge Mukasey well in advance of the actual vote
taking place. Call me if you have any further questions.

Trip King

It should be noted that because I was swamped — it being Friday, and my having to switch gears and pursue a completely different column idea — I wasn’t answering my phone, which presented an obstacle to the campaigns. Amaya Smith kept trying to call me, mentioned that she was doing so in an e-mail. I explained that I’d rather have e-mail because I didn’t have time to talk, so she wrote:

Here is the Senator’s
statement opposing Mukasey early on.

That was at 3:06. At 3:50, I heard from Michelle Macrina with Chris Dodd. She wrote,

Brad,
At a time when the confirmation seemed assured, Senator Dodd was the first Democrat to voice his opposition to Judge Mukasey’s nomination based on his position on the Rule of Law. He registered his opposition repeatedly and urged his colleagues to do the same.

Zac Wright with the Hillary Clinton campaign was apparently having a bad day, and missed my first e-mail. After I e-mail him again, he responded at 6:14 p.m. with:

She’s made every effort to make her votes, as evidenced by having the best attendance record of the candidates running. But she’s running for President and was campaigning in NH. Had this been a close vote, she would have been there.

She’s already spoken out about her views.
This is her statement from the Senate yesterday.

So those are their stories, and I suppose they’re sticking to them. If I’d had time to chat, I would have pursued the matter further with each, but I was multitasking, and this was a lower priority than cranking out pages. I’m just getting to this now.

What do y’all think?

Lindsey’s ‘hard pander’ on immigration

A colleague brings my attention to what he refers to as "a hard pander on immigration from Lindsey." Mike goes on to say:

Not
only is it a reasonable bill he would otherwise support, but he also lapses into
cartoonish military-speak about our southern border. "Boots on the ground" …
"force multiplier" … "unmanned aerial vehicles" … "operational
control."

You’d
think these people were surging over the border with assault rifles, instead of
sneaking in to pick our fruit and prepare our chickens.

Pretty
chickenhearted, from a man with $4 million in campaign funds and no known
opponent.

Anyway, here’s the release he was referring to:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:    Contact: Wes Hickman or Kevin Bishop
October 24, 2007

Graham Opposes DREAM Act
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today voted against invoking cloture on the DREAM Act. Sixty votes were necessary to move to consideration of the legislation and the vote in the Senate was 52-44. He made this statement following the vote:
   “First, we must show the American people we are serious about securing our nation’s borders.
   “I have twice introduced and passed legislation through the Senate providing $3 billion for improved border security. There is no doubt we need more boots on the ground, more miles of fencing, better technology which acts as a force multiplier, additional detention beds, and unmanned aerial vehicles at the border. I have and will continue to push for adoption of the Graham Amendment until it is signed into law by President Bush.
   “Regaining operational control of our nation’s borders is a gateway to further reforms of our broken immigration system.
   “I’m sympathetic to the concerns expressed today on the floor of the Senate, but I believe the legislation was poorly drafted and in need of further amending. Additionally, Majority Leader Reid made clear that he was not going to allow any meaningful changes to the DREAM Act, a legislative process I found to be very unfair. Without assurances border security would be addressed, I would not vote to proceed to this matter.
   “There is no reason to abandon our border security efforts at this critical moment in time. We need to be focused on securing our borders to ensure people who come into the country do so legally.”
               #####

I’m with Mike about the chest-thumping in this release. I will say one thing in Lindsey’s defense, though: He and McCain always couched their immigration efforts in terms of "securing our borders." When I asked Sen. McCain why on Earth he wanted to beat himself up with this issue in the midst of a presidential campaign, when the only people who see this as an urgent issue are the ones who will hate him for not being mean enough to the Mexicans, he said he couldn’t see putting off such an important Homeland Security issue. In other words, it’s not the Mexicans he’s worried about keeping out.

All that said — yeah, Lindsey’s going out of his way, once again, to win hearts and minds among our latter-day Know-Nothings.

How they voted on the pork

No surprise: The "Competitive Grants" program was vetoed by the governor and easily survived said vetoes. There are a bunch of separate items that make up the Competitive Grants program — implementation items (one for the CG program in PRT, one for the CG program in Commerce and one for the CG program in the BCBoard and one administrative item), and three funding lines. What follows are:

1. The Legislature’s "fix" of the program.
2. The governor’s message explaining why he vetoed the implementation items.
3. The votes to override his vetoes.

1. Legislative "fix." The underlined language was added in this year’s budget, the strike-throughs were deleted, and the rest remains as it was laste year:

63.37.    (BCB: Grants Review Committee) On and after January 1, 2006, there is created within the Budget and Control Board the Grants Review Committee for the purpose of awarding competitive community grants to counties and municipalities. The committee shall consist of five members with one member appointed by each of the following officials: the Governor, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives. The officials may make initial appointments to the committee and the committee members may organize prior to January 1, 2006. Members shall serve two-year terms coterminous with the appointing official. The committee must adopt rules of procedure and elect a chairman from the membership of the committee.
   The committee must meet at least twice annually to review applications for grants submitted by counties and municipalities. All applications must conform to and all grants must be awarded pursuant to criteria established by the committee. Grants must be awarded in amounts determined by the committee from funds appropriated by the General Assembly. Staff for the committee must be provided by the Budget and Control Board.
   Applications for grants of one hundred thousand dollars or less must be processed administratively by the staff pursuant to criteria established by the committee. Applications for grants to exceed one hundred thousand dollars must be reviewed for approval by the committee.
   The committee shall establish guidelines, which shall include but not be limited to:

1) Priorities for funding, to include but not be limited to, Department of Health and Environmental Control orders and consent decrees, the ability to match grant funds, and a focus on community festivals;
2) A signature of sponsorship on each application by a member of the General Assembly who represents the county or municipality applying for the grant or the signature of the Governor;
3) Applications for consideration must be in the form prescribed herein and adopted by the committee for any award made effective July 1, 2007;
4) Counties and municipalities must report annually on the expenditure of the funds received until the funds are expended;
5) Final financial reports must be received by the committee within ninety days of the completion of the project along with a description of the results achieved in the interest of the community; and
6) The Budget and Control Board Office of Internal Audit shall have access to all Grants Review Committee records as it deems appropriate.

The committee should ensure that its process is efficient and minimizes unnecessary or duplicative paperwork.

——————————————

2. Governor’s Veto message on the implementation items:

Veto 81 Part 1B, Section 9.44, Department of Health and Environmental Control, page 380; Competitive Grants.
Veto 82 Part 1B, Section 26.6, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 400; Competitive Grants.
Veto 83 Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.
Veto 84 Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.
Veto 85Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.

This program has been in operation for longer than a year now with more than $20 million being doled out to various entities around the state. Through the process, there have been questions linked to several of the awards and whether there were efforts made to circumvent the process established by the General Assembly.

Further, at the writing of this message, there are approximately 2,200 projects totaling over $350 million in requests for a program that would have, at most, $69 million to award. Half of the grants were submitted over a year ago and have not been considered by the Committee, and it does not appear that they will.

In a little over twelve months, this so-called competitive grants program has become backlogged at the rate of five times the allotted money without a merit-based review process. We believe that this program should be ended once and for all.

——————————————-
3. Votes

IN THE HOUSE

VETO 81– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 9.44, Department of Health and Environmental Control, page 380; Competitive Grants.

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

Yeas 76; Nays 31

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bales                Bannister
Barfield             Battle                Bowers
Brady                Branham             G. Brown
R. Brown             Chalk                Chellis
Clemmons             Cobb-Hunter          Coleman
Cooper                Crawford             Davenport
Funderburk          Gambrell             Govan
Gullick             Hamilton             Hardwick
Harrell             Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Hiott                Hodges
Hosey                Howard                Jefferson
Jennings             Kennedy             Knight
Limehouse             Loftis                Lowe
Mack                McLeod                Miller
Moss                J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal
Neilson             Ott                   Parks
Perry                M. A. Pitts          Rice
Rutherford          Sandifer             Scarborough
Scott                Sellers             Skelton
D. C. Smith          F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith          J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith
Spires                Stavrinakis          Umphlett
Weeks                Whipper             White
Whitmire             Williams             Witherspoon
Young

Total–76

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bedingfield          Bingham
Bowen                Cotty                Delleney
Duncan                Edge                Frye
Hagood                Haley                Harrison
Herbkersman          Huggins             Kelly
Kirsh                Leach                Lucas
Mahaffey             Merrill             Mulvaney
Pinson                E. H. Pitts          Shoopman
Simrill             Stewart             Talley
Taylor                Thompson             Toole
Viers

Total–31

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

VETO 82– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 26.6, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 400; Competitive Grants.

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

Yeas 83; Nays 20

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bales                Bannister
Barfield             Battle                Bedingfield
Bowen                Bowers                Brady
Branham             G. Brown             R. Brown
Chalk                Chellis             Clemmons
Clyburn             Cobb-Hunter          Coleman
Cooper                Crawford             Davenport
Frye                Funderburk          Gambrell
Govan                Gullick             Hamilton
Hardwick             Hayes                Herbkersman
Hiott                Hodges                Hosey
Howard                Jennings             Kelly
Kennedy             Knight                Limehouse
Lowe                Lucas                Mack
Mahaffey             McLeod                Merrill
Miller                Mitchell             Moss
J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal          Neilson
Ott                   Parks                Perry
Rice                Rutherford          Sandifer
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Shoopman             Skelton             D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith          Spires
Stavrinakis          Taylor                Toole
Umphlett             Vick                Viers
Weeks                White                Whitmire
Williams             Witherspoon

Total–83

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bingham             Cotty
Delleney             Duncan                Edge
Hagood                Haley                Harrison
Huggins             Kirsh                Leach
Mulvaney             Pinson                E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts          Simrill             Stewart
Talley                Thompson

Total–20

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

VETO 83– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.

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

Yeas 85; Nays 18

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bannister             Barfield
Battle                Bowen                Bowers
Brady                Branham             G. Brown
R. Brown             Chalk                Clemmons
Clyburn             Cobb-Hunter          Coleman
Cooper                Davenport             Edge
Funderburk          Gambrell             Govan
Gullick             Hamilton             Hardwick
Harrell             Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Herbkersman          Hiott
Hodges                Hosey                Howard
Jefferson             Jennings             Kelly
Kennedy             Knight                Leach
Limehouse             Loftis                Lowe
Lucas                Mack                Mahaffey
McLeod                Merrill             Miller
Mitchell             Moss                J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal          Neilson             Ott
Parks                Perry                Pinson
M. A. Pitts          Rice                Rutherford
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Simrill             Skelton             D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith          Spires
Stavrinakis          Taylor                Umphlett
Vick                Viers                Weeks
White                Whitmire             Witherspoon
Young

Total–85

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bedingfield          Bingham
Cotty                Delleney             Duncan
Frye                Hagood                Haley
Harrison             Huggins             Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts          Shoopman             Stewart
Talley                Thompson             Toole

Total–18

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

VETO 84– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.

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

Yeas 81; Nays 26

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bales                Bannister
Barfield             Battle                Bowers
Brady                Branham             G. Brown
R. Brown             Chalk                Chellis
Clemmons             Clyburn             Cobb-Hunter
Coleman             Cooper                Davenport
Edge                Funderburk          Gambrell
Govan                Hamilton             Hardwick
Harrell             Harvin                Hayes
Herbkersman          Hiott                Hodges
Hosey                Howard                Jefferson
Jennings             Kelly                Kennedy
Knight                Leach                Limehouse
Lowe                Lucas                Mack
Mahaffey             McLeod                Miller
Mitchell             Moss                J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal          Neilson             Ott
Parks                Perry                M. A. Pitts
Rice                Rutherford          Sandifer
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Simrill             Skelton             D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith          Spires
Stavrinakis          Taylor                Vick
Weeks                Whipper             White
Whitmire             Witherspoon          Young

Total–81

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bedingfield          Bingham
Bowen                Cotty                Crawford
Delleney             Duncan                Frye
Gullick             Hagood                Haley
Harrison             Huggins             Kirsh
Merrill             Mulvaney             Pinson
E. H. Pitts          Shoopman             Stewart
Talley                Thompson             Toole
Umphlett             Viers

Total–26

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

VETO 85– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.

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

Yeas 77; Nays 24

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anthony
Bales                Bannister             Barfield
Battle                Bowers                Brady
Branham             G. Brown             R. Brown
Chalk                Clemmons             Cobb-Hunter
Coleman             Cooper                Davenport
Edge                Frye                Funderburk
Gambrell             Govan                Hardwick
Harrell             Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Herbkersman          Hiott
Hodges                Hosey                Howard
Jefferson             Jennings             Kelly
Knight                Leach                Lowe
Lucas                Mack                Mahaffey
McLeod                Miller                Mitchell
Moss                J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal
Neilson             Ott                   Parks
Perry                Pinson                M. A. Pitts
Rice                Rutherford          Sandifer
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Simrill             Skelton             D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith          Spires
Stavrinakis          Taylor                Vick
Weeks                White                Whitmire
Witherspoon          Young

Total–77

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bedingfield          Bingham
Bowen                Cotty                Crawford
Delleney             Duncan                Hagood
Haley                Hamilton             Harrison
Huggins             Kirsh                Merrill
Mulvaney             E. H. Pitts          Shoopman
Stewart             Talley                Thompson
Toole                Umphlett             Viers

Total–24

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

VETO 195– OVERRIDDEN

Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 516; Item Number 78(A); P28; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Competitive Grants; $3,000,000.

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

Yeas 84; Nays 19

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Bales                Bannister             Barfield
Battle                Bingham             Bowers
Brady                Branham             Breeland
G. Brown             R. Brown             Chalk
Chellis             Clemmons             Clyburn
Coleman             Cooper                Crawford
Edge                Frye                Funderburk
Gambrell             Govan                Gullick
Hamilton             Hardwick             Harrell
Hart                Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Herbkersman          Hiott
Hodges                Hosey                Huggins
Jefferson             Jennings             Kelly
Knight                Limehouse             Lowe
Mack                Mahaffey             McLeod
Mitchell             Moss                J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal          Neilson             Ott
Owens                Parks                Perry
Pinson                E. H. Pitts          M. A. Pitts
Rice                Rutherford          Sandifer
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Skelton             D. C. Smith          G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith          J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith
Spires                Stavrinakis          Taylor
Toole                Umphlett             Vick
Weeks                Whipper             White
Whitmire             Williams             Young

Total–84

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Bedingfield          Bowen
Cotty                Davenport             Delleney
Duncan                Hagood                Haley
Harrison             Kirsh                Leach
Loftis                Lucas                Mulvaney
Shoopman             Thompson             Viers
Witherspoon

Total–19
———————————-
VETO 212– OVERRIDDEN

Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 517; Item Number 79(A); P32; Department of Commerce; Competitive Grants; $500,000.

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

Yeas 86; Nays 12

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Bales                Ballentine          Bannister
Barfield             Battle                Bingham
Bowen                Bowers                Brady
Branham             G. Brown             R. Brown
Chalk                Chellis             Clemmons
Clyburn             Cobb-Hunter          Coleman
Cooper                Crawford             Edge
Frye                Funderburk          Gambrell
Govan                Haley                Hardwick
Hart                Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Herbkersman          Hiott
Hodges                Hosey                Howard
Huggins             Jefferson             Kelly
Knight                Leach                Limehouse
Lowe                Lucas                Mack
Mahaffey             McLeod                Mitchell
Moss                J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal
Neilson             Ott                   Owens
Parks                Perry                Pinson
E. H. Pitts          M. A. Pitts          Rice
Rutherford          Sandifer             Scarborough
Sellers             Shoopman             Simrill
Skelton             D. C. Smith          F. N. Smith
G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith          J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith          Spires                Stavrinakis
Taylor                Toole                Vick
Weeks                Whipper             White
Whitmire             Williams

Total–86

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bedingfield          Cotty                Davenport
Delleney             Duncan                Gullick
Hagood                Kirsh                Mulvaney
Thompson             Umphlett             Viers

Total–12

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

———————————————

VETO 236– OVERRIDDEN

Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 517; Item Number 86(F); F03; Budget and Control Board; Competitive Grants; $3,000,000.

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

Yeas 81; Nays 17

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Bales                Bannister             Barfield
Battle                Bedingfield          Bingham
Bowen                Bowers                Brady
Branham             Breeland             G. Brown
R. Brown             Chellis             Clemmons
Clyburn             Cobb-Hunter          Cooper
Delleney             Edge                Funderburk
Gambrell             Govan                Hamilton
Hardwick             Harrell             Harvin
Haskins             Hayes                Hiott
Hodges                Hosey                Howard
Huggins             Jefferson             Jennings
Kelly                Knight                Leach
Limehouse             Lowe                Lucas
Mack                Mahaffey             McLeod
Mitchell             Moss                J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal          Neilson             Ott
Owens                Parks                Perry
Pinson                E. H. Pitts          Rice
Sandifer             Scarborough          Scott
Sellers             Simrill             Skelton
F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          Spires                Stavrinakis
Taylor                Vick                Weeks
Whipper             White                Whitmire
Williams             Witherspoon          Young

Total–81

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine          Cotty                Crawford
Duncan                Frye                Gullick
Hagood                Haley                Harrison
Kirsh                Merrill             Mulvaney
D. C. Smith          Thompson             Toole
Umphlett             Viers

Total–17

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

IN THE SENATE
VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 81 Part 1B, Section 9.44, Department of Health and Environmental Control, page 380; Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator ALEXANDER moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Alexander                Anderson                Ceips
Cleary                   Courson                Cromer
Drummond                Elliott                Fair
Ford                   Gregory                Hayes
Hutto                   Jackson                Knotts
Land                   Leatherman             Leventis
Lourie                   Malloy                   Martin
Matthews                McConnell                McGill
Moore                   O’Dell                   Patterson
Peeler                   Pinckney                Rankin
Reese                   Ritchie                Ryberg
Scott                   Setzler                Sheheen
Short                   Thomas                   Vaughn
Williams

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 82 Part 1B, Section 26.6, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 400; Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Message from the House

Columbia, S.C., June 28, 2007

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R.175, H. 3620 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3620.htm> by a vote of 85 to 18:

R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 83 Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.
Respectfully submitted,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 83 Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Message from the House

Columbia, S.C., June 28, 2007

Mr. President and Senators:

R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 84 Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.
Respectfully submitted,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 84 Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5
AYES

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Message from the House

Columbia, S.C., June 28, 2007

Mr. President and Senators:

R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 85 Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 85 Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 145 Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; page 514; Item Number 65(H); J04; Department of Health and Environmental Control; Competitive Grants; $2,800,000.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator ALEXANDER moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 39; Nays 6

AYES

Alexander                Anderson                Ceips
Cleary                   Courson                Cromer
Drummond                Elliott                Fair
Ford                   Gregory                Hayes
Hutto                   Jackson                Knotts
Land                   Leatherman             Leventis
Lourie                   Malloy                   Martin
Matthews                McConnell                McGill
Moore                   O’Dell                   Patterson
Peeler                   Pinckney                Rankin
Reese                   Ritchie                Scott
Setzler                Sheheen                Short
Thomas                   Vaughn                   Williams

Total–39

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Ryberg Verdin

Total–6

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 195 Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 516; Item Number 78(A); P28; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Competitive Grants; $3,000,000.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator LEATHERMAN moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 39; Nays 6
AYES

Alexander                Anderson                Ceips
Cleary                   Courson                Cromer
Drummond                Elliott                Fair
Ford                   Gregory                Hayes
Hutto                   Jackson                Knotts
Land                   Leatherman             Leventis
Lourie                   Malloy                   Martin
Matthews                McConnell                McGill
Moore                   O’Dell                   Patterson
Peeler                   Pinckney                Rankin
Reese                   Ritchie                Scott
Setzler                Sheheen                Short
Thomas                   Vaughn                   Williams

Total–39

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Ryberg Verdin

Total–6

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 212 Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 517; Item Number 79(A); P32; Department of Commerce; Competitive Grants; $500,000.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 39; Nays 6

AYES

Alexander                Anderson                Ceips
Cleary                   Courson                Cromer
Drummond                Elliott                Fair
Ford                   Gregory                Hayes
Hutto                   Jackson                Knotts
Land                   Leatherman             Leventis
Lourie                   Malloy                   Martin
Matthews                McConnell                McGill
Moore                   O’Dell                   Patterson
Peeler                   Pinckney                Rankin
Reese                   Ritchie                Scott
Setzler                Sheheen                Short
Thomas                   Vaughn                   Williams

Total–39

NAYS

Bryant Campsen Grooms
Hawkins Ryberg Verdin

Total–6

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Driving Mr. Bauer: The Sequel

UPDATE on Gov Lite Driver: The House by a smaller margin overrode the veto of the PROVISO for the chauffeur. The possible logic: The money line included other stuff; as long as the PROVISO was removed, there would be no security detail (Just an extra $90,000 in the lt gov’s office with no particular use, and possibly unavailable to be spent, although I’m not sure) … So here’s THe vote to override the PROVISO:

VETO 95– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 72.110, General Provision, page 502; Lt. Governor Security Detail.

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

Yeas 77; Nays 21

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bales                Bannister
Barfield             Battle                Bingham
Bowen                Bowers                Brady
Branham             Breeland             G. Brown
Chalk                Chellis             Clemmons
Clyburn             Cooper                Cotty
Davenport             Delleney             Edge
Frye                Gambrell             Govan
Gullick             Hardwick             Harrell
Harrison             Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                Hiott                Hodges
Hosey                Jefferson             Jennings
Kelly                Knight                Leach
Mack                Mahaffey             Merrill
Miller                Mitchell             Moss
J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal          Neilson
Parks                Perry                Pinson
M. A. Pitts          Rice                Sandifer
Scarborough          Scott                Sellers
Simrill             Skelton             F. N. Smith
G. M. Smith          G. R. Smith          J. R. Smith
Spires                Talley                Taylor
Toole                Umphlett             Vick
Weeks                Whipper             White
Williams             Witherspoon

Total–77

Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine          Bedingfield          Crawford
Duncan                Funderburk          Hagood
Haley                Hamilton             Huggins
Kirsh                Loftis                Lowe
Lucas                McLeod                Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts          Shoopman             D. C. Smith
Stewart             Thompson             Viers

Total–21

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

How they voted on Andre’s driver

How would you vote, if it were up to you, on whether taxpayers should supply a driver/security guy for Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.

If almost anyone else — Nick Theodore, Bob Peeler, whoever — were the current Gov Lite, I would say "no way." Probably half the people I know need security more than the lieutenant governor of South Carolina. And I don’t know anyone outside the Oval Office who needs the army of armed guards Nick took with him to the 1988 Democratic Convention.

But Andre Bauer? One doesn’t have to be facetious to say that it might be in the public interest to keep him from behind the wheel. Our roads are deadly enough as it is.

In the end, I would probably have voted to sustain the governor’s veto, though, in the name of erring on the side of thrift.

Here’s how legislators who had the power to decide this actually did vote. As you know, they overrode the governor, so let’s just hope he gets a good, safe driver:

First the vote in the House, followed by the vote in the Senate.

A "yes" vote is to fund the driver. The amount is more than $90,000 because the driver was included on the same line in the budget with another item, so the governor had to veto both or neither:

House
VETO 39– OVERRIDDEN

Part IA; Section 57; Page 264; Lieutenant Governor’s Office; I. Administration; Other Operating Expenses; $112,173.

Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.

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

Yeas 92; Nays 16

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bales                Ballentine
Bannister             Barfield          Battle
Bingham             Bowen             Bowers
Brady                   Branham          Breeland
G. Brown             R. Brown          Chalk
Chellis                Clemmons          Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter       Coleman             Cooper
Cotty                   Davenport          Delleney
Edge                   Frye                Gambrell
Govan                Gullick             Hamilton
Hardwick             Harrell             Harrison
Hart                   Harvin             Haskins
Hayes                Herbkersman    Hiott
Hodges                Hosey                Howard
Huggins             Jefferson          Jennings
Kelly                   Kennedy             Knight
Leach                Loftis                Lowe
Lucas                Mahaffey          Merrill
Miller                Mitchell             Moss
J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal          Neilson
Parks                Perry                   Pinson
M. A. Pitts          Rice                   Rutherford
Sandifer             Scarborough       Scott
Sellers                Simrill                Skelton
F. N. Smith       G. M. Smith       G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith       Spires                Stavrinakis
Talley                Taylor                Toole
Umphlett             Vick                   Weeks
Whipper             White                Williams
Witherspoon       Young

Total–92

Those who voted in the negative are:
Bedingfield          Crawford             Duncan
Funderburk          Hagood                Haley
Kirsh                   McLeod                Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts          Shoopman          D. C. Smith
Stewart                Thompso             Viers
Whitmire

Total–16

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

————————————————————–

Senate
VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 39 – Part IA; Section 57; Page 264; Lieutenant Governor’s Office; I; Administration; Other Operating Expenses; $112,173.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator LEATHERMAN moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 39; Nays 6

AYES
Alexander                Anderson             Ceips
Cleary                   Drummond          Elliott
Fair                      Ford                   Gregory
Hawkins                Hayes                Hutto
Jackson                   Knotts                Land
Leatherman             Leventis             Lourie
Malloy                   Martin                Matthews
McGill                   Moore                O’Dell
Patterson                Peeler                Pinckney
Rankin                   Reese                Ritchie
Ryberg                   Scott                   Setzler
Sheheen                Short                Thomas
Vaughn                   Verdin                Williams

Total–39

NAYS
Bryant                   Campsen             Courson
Cromer                Grooms                McConnell

Total–6

Iraq resolutions: Three views

Still catching up on notes and video from the Monday and Tuesday meetings with Sens. DeMint and Graham. Here’s what Sen. DeMint had to say about the anti-Surge nonbinding referendum:

And here’s what Sen. Graham had to say:

For an interesting, other-than-the-usual contrast, here’s what fellow Republican Bob Inglis had to say over on the House floor explaining why he voted FOR the resolution. Either follow the link to the whole thing, or be satisfied with this excerpt:

The President has ordered an increase in troop strength in Iraq.
He thinks a surge in troops will give breathing room for the development of a path to progress.
I’m concerned that a surge will have the opposite effect—that it will give breathing room to the death squads, that our service men and women will be caught in the crossfire and that the surge will end right where it began.
In fact, that’s what happened in Baghdad in August and September of 2006.
I’m concerned that a surge sends a conflicting message. On the one hand we’re telling them, “You don’t have forever; you’ve got to make progress in solving these political questions; you’ve got to stop legging up on your enemies; it’s your country.”
By surging, we may be saying, “Not to worry, we’re increasing the size of that American security umbrella; there’s no urgency; we’re here to stay; in fact, more of us are coming.”
I want all Iraqi factions and leaders of factions to worry.
I want them to see us reaching for the button that would bring that umbrella down.
I want them to imagine the click of that button and the feel of the wind from the descending umbrella.
The resolution before us isn’t written the way I would have written it, but it’s the resolution before us.
Resolutions are the way that Congress discharges its constitutional responsibility to communicate with the President.
This resolution says, “We disapprove of the surge.”

You decide which one you think is right. I’ve got a column to write for Sunday, on another subject.

Closing the process

So that you’ll know where to direct your ire — or your appreciation, in some cases — here’s how S.C. House members voted on whether to close Republican (and other) Caucus meetings to the public:

{BC-SC-Closed Meetings-Roll Call,0384}
{By The Associated Press}=
The 59-52 roll call by which the South Carolina House adopted a Republican-backed plan to allow caucuses to meet behind closed doors.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to adopt the change.
Voting "yes" were 2 Democrats and 57 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 42 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
Not voting were 6 Democrats and 7 Republicans.

{Democrats Voting Yes}
Bales, Eastover; Neilson, Darlington;

{Republicans Voting Yes}
Ballentine, Irmo; Bannister, Greenville; Barfield, Conway; Bedingfield, Mauldin; Bingham, West Columbia; Bowen, Anderson; Brady, Columbia; Cato, Travelers Rest; Ceips, Beaufort; Chalk, Hilton Head Island; Chellis, Summerville; Clemmons, Myrtle Beach; Cooper, Piedmont; Dantzler, Goose Creek; Delleney, Chester; Gambrell, Honea Path; Gullick, Lake Wylie; Haley, Lexington; Hardwick, Surfside Beach; Harrell, Charleston; Harrison, Columbia; Haskins, Greenville; Herbkersman, Bluffton; Hinson, Goose Creek; Hiott, Pickens; Kelly, Woodruff; Leach, Greer; Limehouse, Charleston; Littlejohn, Spartanburg; Loftis, Greenville; Lowe, Florence; Lucas, Hartsville; Mahaffey, Lyman; Merrill, Daniel Island; Mulvaney, Indian Land; Owens, Pickens; Pinson, Greenwood; M.A. Pitts, Laurens; Rice, Easley; Sandifer, Seneca; Scarborough, Charleston; Shoopman, Greer; D.C. Smith, North Augusta; G.M. Smith, Sumter; G.R. Smith, Simpsonville; J.R. Smith, Langley; W.D. Smith, Spartanburg; Spires, Pelion; Taylor, Laurens; Thompson, Anderson; Umphlett, Moncks Corner; Viers, Myrtle Beach; Walker, Landrum; White, Anderson; Whitmire, Walhalla; Witherspoon, Conway; Young, Summerville;

{Democrats Voting No}
Alexander, Florence; Anderson, Georgetown; Battle, Nichols; Bowers, Brunson; Branham, Lake City; Brantley, Ridgeland; Breeland, Charleston; G. Brown, Bishopville; R. Brown, Hollywood; Clyburn, Aiken; Cobb-Hunter, Orangeburg; Funderburk, Camden; Govan, Orangeburg; Hart, Columbia; Harvin, Summerton; Hayes, Hamer; Hodges, Green Pond; Hosey, Barnwell; Howard, Columbia; Jefferson, Pineville; Jennings, Bennettsville; Kennedy, Greeleyville; Kirsh, Clover; Knight, St. George; Mack, North Charleston; McLeod, Little Mountain; Miller, Pawleys Island; Mitchell, Spartanburg; Moss, Gaffney; J.H. Neal, Hopkins; J.M. Neal, Kershaw; Ott, St. Matthews; Parks, Greenwood; Rutherford, Columbia; Scott, Columbia; Sellers, Denmark; F.N. Smith, Greenville; Stavrinakis, Charleston; Vick, Chesterfield; Weeks, Sumter; Whipper, North Charleston; Williams, Darlington;

{Republicans Voting No}
Agnew, Abbeville; Edge, North Myrtle Beach; Frye, Batesburg-Leesville; Hamilton, Taylors; Huggins, Columbia; Perry, Aiken; E.H. Pitts, Lexington; Simrill, Rock Hill; Talley, Spartanburg; Toole, West Columbia;

{Those Not Voting}
Democrats: Allen, Greenville; Anthony, Union; Coleman, Winnsboro; Moody-Lawrence, Rock Hill; Phillips, Gaffney; J.E. Smith, Columbia;
Republicans: Cotty, Columbia; Crawford, Florence; Davenport, Boiling Springs; Duncan, Clinton; Hagood, Mt. Pleasant; Skelton, Six Mile; Stewart, Aiken;

How they voted to kill the cigarette tax hike

Just in case you missed, or got whiplash trying to follow, the peremptory manner in which the House threw out the idea of even a modest increase in our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax, Cindi Scoppe relates a few salient facts about it on today’s editorial page — including the one about how the money would have gone to helping the state get serious, for the first time, about youth smoking prevention and cessation (beyond the fact, of course, that increasing the tax in an of itself exerts downward pressure on the rate of teenage smoking).

What Cindi didn’t have room for in her column was how they voted. I’ll supply that:

The House voted 58-53 to table a budget amendment that would have increased the cigarette tax by 30 cents a pack.

Here’s the amendment, followed by the vote:

/64 (DOR: Cigarette tax) (A) In addition to the tax imposed pursuant to Section 12-21-620(1), there is imposed an additional tax equal to 1.5 cents on each cigarette made of tobacco or any substitute for tobacco. The tax imposed pursuant to this paragraph must be reported, paid, collected, and enforced in the same manner as the tax imposed pursuant to Section 12-21-620(1).
(B) There are created in the state treasury, separate and distinct from the general fund of the State, the Youth Smoking Prevention and Cessation Fund and the South Carolina Health and Prevention Fund. Four percent of the revenue generated by this additional tax must be credited to the Youth Smoking Prevention and Cessation Fund and monies in the fund must be used by the Department of Health and Environmental Control in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control recommended comprehensive programs using best practices for youth smoking prevention and cessation programs. One percent of the revenue generated by this additional tax must be credited to the Department of Agriculture for research and promotion of healthy lifestyles with food grown in this State. The remaining revenue generated by this additional tax must be credited to the South Carolina Health and Prevention Fund. The General Assembly shall appropriate the monies from the South Carolina Health and Prevention Fund to critical programs that meet health needs of South Carolinians, including using funds for a Medicaid match each year, as needed. The monies credited to these funds are exempt from budgetary cuts or reductions caused by the lack of general fund revenues. Earnings on investments of monies in the funds must be credited to the respective fund and used for the same purposes as other monies in the funds. Any monies in the funds not expended during the fiscal year must be carried forward to the succeeding fiscal year and used for the same purposes./

Voting to table the amendment (58)

Altman
Bailey
Bannister
Barfield
Battle
Bingham
Brady
Cato
Chalk
Chellis
Clemmons
Cooper
Davenport
Duncan
Edge
Frye
Haley
Hamilton
Hardwick
Harrell
Harrison
Haskins
Hayes
Herbkersman
Hinson
Huggins
Kennedy
Kirsh
Leach
Loftis
Lucas
Mahaffey
McCraw
Merrill
Neilson
Norman
Perry
E. H. Pitts
Sandifer
Simrill
Skelton
G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith
Stewart
Talley
Taylor
Thompson
Toole
Townsend
Umphlett
Vaughn
Viers
Walker
White
Whitmire
Witherspoon
Young

Voting to support the amendment (53)

Agnew
Allen
Anderson
Anthony
Bales
Ballentine
Bowers
Branham
Breeland
G. Brown
J. Brown
R. Brown
Ceips
Clark
Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter
Coleman
Cotty
Dantzler
Delleney
Emory
Funderburk
Govan
Harvin
J. Hines
Hiott
Hodges
Hosey
Howard
Jefferson
Limehouse
Littlejohn
Mack
McGee
Miller
Mitchell
Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal
Ott
Owens
Parks
Phillips
Pinson
Rhoad
Rice
Scott
Sinclair
D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith
J. E. Smith
Vick
Whipper

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits

Category Archives: How they voted

Those who voted ‘aye,’ and those who voted ‘nay’ on flag

We are the 10 percent! The tyranny of a minority

By contrast, Barrett LIKES this bill — the one with all the fixin’s

How they voted on (sort of) restructuring

How they voted on cigarette tax

How they voted on the cigarette tax

The senators’ excuses for being MIA on Mukasey

Lindsey’s ‘hard pander’ on immigration

How they voted on the pork

Driving Mr. Bauer: The Sequel

How they voted on Andre’s driver

Iraq resolutions: Three views

Closing the process

How they voted to kill the cigarette tax hike