Printed Page 4770, June 13
| Printed Page 4790, June 13
|
Printed Page 4770, June 13
| Printed Page 4790, June 13
| "(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, upon the death of any member of the system, a lump sum amount shall must be paid to such the persons as he shall have the member nominated by written designation, filed with the board, otherwise to his estate. Such This amount shall must be equal to the amount of his the member's accumulated contributions. An active contributing member making the nomination provided under this section also may name secondary beneficiaries in the same manner that beneficiaries are named. A secondary beneficiary has no rights under this chapter unless all beneficiaries nominated by the member predecease the member and the member's death occurs while in service. In this instance, a secondary beneficiary is considered the member's beneficiary for purposes of this section.
(2) Unless a married member has designated a beneficiary other than his spouse in accordance with subsection (1), upon his death prior to retirement an allowance equal to one third of the allowance which would have been payable to him, assuming he was then eligible to retire and had retired on the date of his death, shall be paid to his surviving spouse until her death or remarriage. This allowance is payable in lieu of the lump sum amount payable in accordance with subsection (1). Upon the death of a retired member who has not designated a beneficiary other than a spouse an allowance equal to one third of the allowance which would have been payable to him, shall be paid to the surviving spouse until death or remarriage. For purposes of this subsection, `retired member' shall include those former judges and solicitors who are beneficiaries pursuant to subsection (4) of Section 9-8-60."
SECTION 3. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 9-9-55. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any member of the General Assembly who served in the General Assembly any portion of a year may establish credit for the entire year by paying the full actuarial cost as determined by the Retirement System for members of the General Assembly."
SECTION 4. Section 9-9-100(1) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(1) Upon the death of any a member of the system, a lump sum amount shall must be paid to such the person as he shall have the member
SECTION 5. Section 9-11-110 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding at the end:
"(3) An active contributing member making the nomination provided under subsection (1) of this section also may name contingent beneficiaries in the same manner that beneficiaries are named. A contingent beneficiary has no rights under this chapter unless all beneficiaries nominated by the member have predeceased the member and the member's death occurs while in service. In this instance, a contingent beneficiary is considered the member's beneficiary for purposes of subsection (1) of this section and Section 9-11-130, if applicable."
SECTION 6. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
/s/Edward E. Saleeby /s/Marion P. Carnell
/s/John C. Land, III /s/Patrick B. Harris
/s/William C. Mescher /s/Claude V. Marchbanks
On Part of the Senate.On Part of the House.
Rep. MARCHBANKS explained the Conference Report.
The Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
H. 3362, General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1995-96.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and
recommend:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words
and inserting:
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Make all necessary technical corrections.
/s/Senator John Drummond/s/Rep. Henry E. Brown, Jr.
/s/Senator J. Verne Smith/s/Rep. John G. Felder
/s/Senator Harvey S. Peeler/s/Rep. Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
On Part of the Senate.On Part of the House.
Rep. H. BROWN explained the Conference Report.
Rep. CROMER moved that the House go into a committee of the whole to discuss (1) low-level radioactive waste disposal.
Rep. A. YOUNG moved to table the motion.
Rep. CROMER demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Askins Boan Brown, H. Cain Cato Cave Chamblee Cooper Dantzler Davenport Easterday Elliott Fair Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Harrell Harris, P. Harrison Harvin Haskins Herdklotz Huff Jaskwhich Keegan Kelley Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Marchbanks Martin Mason McAbee McCraw McKay Rhoad Rice Riser Robinson Sandifer Sharpe Smith, D. Smith, R. Stille
Stoddard Stuart Townsend Tripp Trotter Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Wilkins Witherspoon Wright Young, A.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Baxley Beatty Breeland Brown, G. Brown, T. Byrd Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cotty Cromer Delleney Harris, J. Hines Hodges Howard Hutson Inabinett Jennings Keyserling Kirsh Lloyd McMahand McTeer Meacham Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Quinn Richardson Rogers Scott Seithel Sheheen Shissias Simrill Spearman Thomas Tucker Whipper, L. Whipper, S. Wilder Williams Wofford Worley Young, J.
So, the motion was tabled.
Rep. CROMER spoke against the Conference Report.
On motion of Rep. COBB-HUNTER, with unanimous consent, Rep. CROMER'S remarks were ordered printed in the Journal as follows:
As you've noticed, several times I have made futile attempts to resolve ourselves into a committee of the whole to effect a forum of debate on the issue of Barnwell. Each time, we have failed. So here we are: it's time to vote on the budget; I rise today not to discuss the merits of the Appropriation Bill before us, nor of any singular aspect of it -- including low-level nuclear waste at the Barnwell facility. Rather, I rise for an even
I can honestly say that it is my opinion that we have had a great year. Since words can often be viewed as empty and superficial, I am glad to stand before you and tell you I have a record of supportive actions to prove my enthusiastic viewpoint which is shared by so many in this Chamber. Term limits, crime reform, complete welfare reform, enforcing a stagnant Senate to realize that property tax relief is unavoidable and must happen immediately; these are just a few of our accomplishments under the new leadership of the House. Progressive things. Popular things. Necessary things.
In the face of all this success, why has this body made a sudden about-face and refused to allow debate on an issue with the fiscal and policy-making import as extending South Carolina's acceptance of low-level nuclear waste at the Barnwell facility? The Barnwell issue is an old one, but rest-assured, it is a current one that consumes the minds of many of our constituents. Precluding debate on an issue this sensitive is a very unwise fight, an unfair move, and its precedence has frightening ramifications.
Again, I am not here to speak on the substance of the Barnwell issue itself. To be sure, we have all been elected by the people, and I respect everyone's opinion as a result of our elections, be you for or against extending Barnwell beyond this December. In fact, it is incumbent to respect everyone's opinion in this chamber; the majority of your citizens chose to put you here.
My objection, in essence, is simple: While a vote to disallow debate over this issue may be seen as "good" if you want Barnwell extended, I ask you to please back up a second and consider the ramifications of precluding debate on this issue. Suppose, for example, that an issue like gambling, a tax increase, or state employee pay cuts was slapped on the Senate's budget. Of these issues, would you feel the need to debate them before voting on them? Conversely, what if senior citizens or veterans benefits, funding for your local university or hospital, appropriation for a needy agency or service for which you fought so hard were gutted by the Senate? If one of these issues near and dear to you was suddenly eliminated, would you like to be heard on that issue prior to voting on a budget? In essence, what is acceptable today may be detestable tomorrow -- it depends on what issue you, as an elected official, deem to be important.
Contemplation and debate are integral parts of a democracy, and they should be the lifeblood of this institution. As for the issue of low-level
Just yesterday, Representative Jaskwhich properly advised me that I am too young to be bitter. He's right. I am also, however, too old and too respectful of this institution to be silent. I have read with much interest and respect the written words and reflections of Dr. Herdklotz, Representative Keyserling and others regarding the Barnwell issue. I wanted to hear those words from this podium as well. Apparently I cannot.
When a deaf ear is turned to debate in an institution like the South Carolina House, it is a sad day to me. I want you to take my words in the positive light I intend them to be. I make these comments out of love for this institution and out of respect for you. I truly do like everyone in this Chamber whom I have had the privilege to get to know. I will always offer my personal help to anyone in this Chamber who calls on me to do so: legal opinions, constituent complaints, tactical arguments -- and I have. As an Independent member up here, I know I will be targeted every time I run for office -- and I have. But while I'm here, I will fight for my office as I will fight for this institution's integrity, and I am. As long as I am a state representative, I will stand for what the people who own this seat support, and I do. On behalf of those people, I believe that Barnwell should close. To express that opinion, however, I need the right to debate -- and we haven't. No party, policy, platform or Governor's agenda can change my conviction -- and it hasn't.
Crime reform, term limits, welfare reform, property tax relief -- and the denial of debate of the issues: what doesn't fit in this picture? How are the people supposed to understand? I don't think they will. You be the judge.
Thank you for your time and allowing me to express these concerns today.
Rep. KIRSH spoke against the Conference Report.
Rep. HODGES spoke against the Conference Report.
Rep. SHEHEEN spoke against the Conference Report.
Rep. HASKINS spoke in favor of the Conference Report.
Rep. ROGERS spoke against the Conference Report.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. McKAY a leave of absence due to medical reasons.
Rep. FELDER spoke in favor of the Conference Report.
Rep. HUFF moved immediate cloture on the entire matter.
Rep. SHEHEEN demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Bailey Brown, H. Cain Cato Cave Chamblee Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Elliott Fair Felder Fleming Gamble Govan Harrell Harris, P. Harvin Haskins Herdklotz Huff Hutson Jaskwhich Jennings Keegan Kinon Kirsh Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Marchbanks Mason McAbee McCraw Meacham Phillips Rhoad Rice Riser Robinson Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Stille Stuart Thomas Townsend Tripp Trotter Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Worley Wright Young, A. Young, J.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Askins Baxley Beatty Boan Breeland Brown, G. Brown, T. Byrd Canty Clyburn Cobb-Hunter
Cooper Cotty Cromer Harris, J. Harrison Hines Hodges Howard Inabinett Keyserling Lloyd McElveen McMahand McTeer Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Quinn Richardson Rogers Scott Sheheen Shissias Spearman Tucker Whipper, L. Whipper, S. Wilder Wilkes
So, immediate cloture was ordered.
Reps. COBB-HUNTER, G. BROWN and L. WHIPPER spoke against the Conference Report.
Rep. HASKINS moved to waive Rule 6.1, which was agreed to by a division vote of 64 to 27.
Rep. L. WHIPPER continued speaking.
Rep. G. BROWN moved that the House recede until 2:15 P.M., which was rejected by a division vote of 38 to 58.
Rep. L. WHIPPER continued speaking.
Rep. McTEER spoke in favor of the Conference Report.
Rep. NEAL spoke against the Conference Report.
The question then recurred to the adoption of the Conference Report.
Rep. H. BROWN demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Askins Bailey Boan Brown, H. Cain Cato Cave Chamblee
Clyburn Cooper Cotty Cromer Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Elliott Fair Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Harrell Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Harvin Haskins Herdklotz Huff Hutson Jaskwhich Jennings Keegan Kelley Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Marchbanks Martin Mason McAbee McCraw McTeer Meacham Neilson Phillips Quinn Rhoad Rice Richardson Riser Robinson Sandifer Sharpe Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stuart Townsend Tripp Trotter Tucker Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Wright Young, A. Young, J.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Baxley Beatty Breeland Brown, G. Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Canty Cobb-Hunter Govan Hines Hodges Howard Inabinett Kennedy Keyserling Kirsh Lloyd McElveen McMahand Moody-Lawrence Neal Rogers Scott Seithel Sheheen Shissias Whipper, L.
In accordance with Section 8-13-700(B) of the S.C. Code, I abstained from voting on the below referenced bill or amendment because of a potential conflict of interest and wish to have my recusal noted for the record in the House Journal of this date.
Bill #: General Subject Matter: Conference Report on General Appropriation, H. 3362, Carnell Felder, Supplemental Bill, and Capital Reserve Bill
The reason for abstaining on the above reference 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.
I did not vote on individual budgets of agencies but I did vote on the budget as whole. Applies to weeks of conference committee work, adoption of conference and free conference reports.
Rep. JOHN G. FELDER
I voted in favor of the 95-96 General Appropriations Bill due to the fact that contents included significant property tax relief for homeowners, a child tax exemption, homestead exemptions for senior citizens, enhanced funding for education, school prayer, welfare reform and protection for the Confederate flag. I do not support the extension of the Barnwell facility that is now included in the budget. Several attempts were made to debate Barnwell in an attempt to remove it from the budget and I voted in favor of those motions, as recorded in the Journal, but to no avail.
Rep. J. GARY SIMRILL
Rep. BECKY MEACHAM
Printed Page 4770, June 13
| Printed Page 4790, June 13
|