i'm sure each of our colleagues has about the same. and do you know that a good portion of those are the people saying, why don't you give us a vote? >> sure. >> do you further know that if we had a referendum, and let the people speak that if the people spoke and decided to take the flag down, that i would vote to take the flag down. >> i did know that because you told me that earlier and i would do the same. >> and did you further know that if the people spoke and said leave the flag up, i would vote like i -- my heart tells me to leave the flag up. >> yes, sir. >> having said all that, you know, we have a choice to make. we got our districts to represent. in my district it's overwhelmingly, do you know, they want the flag left up. they want their an sesters and their heritage honored and they most of all want their veterans honored. >> yes, sir. >> and did you know that in may of 1958 that general and then president eisenhower signed into law to make the confederate veterans equal to all the other veteran groups with all the same rights and privileges? >> yes, sir. i think that probably also coincide with the pardon for jefferson davis and lee and all the others. >> do you know a lot of people in this state really want to have a say on this like you're asking for a referendum and really want to continue to honor their veterans like we honor we talked about representative hose this morning and his great service to our country, and they feel the same way about their ancestors. >> mr. burns, i think this is probably the most emotional issue our state will ever deal with and i think if there was ever a reason for a nonbinding advisory referendum this would be it. >> well, we've gone around and around and tried to talk about this for some time and until now, this is the first time we've got to talk about it. do you know that the senate had a vote on this? >> yes, sir. >> and do you know the results of that vote? >> no, sir i'm not 100% sure. probably fairly one sided. >> it was -- wasn't as one sided as you might think. it was 22-17 i'm told. you know, the senate voted 37-3 to send this bill over but they were 22-17 to let the people decide. >> i think it's difficult to deny the people a voice when they want one. so i would believe that. >> well do you think that's what we're doing in this process, by excluding the south carolinians? i feel bad that the people in northern greenville county i'm the only say they have and here we are put in the box down here, rushed up the governor, which i voted for and do you know that i've persuaded people who were not for the governor to vote for her and to do fund-raisers they did fund-raisers for her and all kind of things and she's put us in the box by racing us in here. >> representative burns normally i would say that the people have a voice by electing us and we should do our job, but i think that given the special nature of this issue and given how quickly it's been rushed, with no committee or anything like that, it has not been able to go through the due process, i think that the combination of those two things makes this a perfect situation for a nonbinding advisory referendum. >> do you know that representative southern a moment ago brought up about the lottery. >> yes, sir. >> and it was a serious issue just like this is. this general assembly decided to let the people speak on that, right? >> i assume so. this is my first year here sir. >> you know, it was about as volatile as this is right here and so i guess i can bring this to a conclusion, do you know that i feel very strongly that we need to consider this amendment because not considering this amendment takes a whole lot of people out of the process and do you further know that i feel like if the people spoke then we could, you know, we could live with whatever the people's voice was and i further think that the national media and everybody rushing in here trying to tell us how we should be and what we should do, with further respect the voice of the people then a group of 170 or so politicians ganged up to try to figure this out. so i'm thanking you for your efforts. i plan to vote for your amendment. thank you very much. >> thank you sir. >> miss taylor recognized for a question. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. corley thank you very much for taking the well to better explain the issue of the referendum and clarify all of that although do you know i'm kind of concerned because representative smith's hovering behind you just waiting to come up there and counter. >> that's what we lawyers do we circle. >> i understand you lawyers. i'm not a lawyer, but i do represent a large district in aiken county, the rural district, house district 86 and you know that's a district -- mr. speaker? >> house will come to order. members, please come to order. mr. taylor. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate that. i couldn't hear myself talking. that's hard. wow. i represent a large rural district and it's a god fairing district with people who have a great deal of heritage, southern heritage, and when they say bless your heart you know, they actually mean it. >> yes, sir. >> but i've heard from a lot of them like a lot of you i've heard with, my guess is, not getting enough e-mails there, mr. burns, i've only gotten about 2,000, but it is running about 73% that they say keep that flag up. >> your first ten minutes has expired. request a second ten minutes. granted. mr. taylor. >> thank you sir. your point about the referendum and i have many people ask for that frankly demand that, and here's what i would offer you. you know in a representative form of government we're here are we not to represent. >> yes, sir. >> and i think we do that, would you agree that we do that because we deal with some very complex issues here. when you get a taxing issue or a complex governmental issue, like dot or something else those are complex issues, would you agree? >> yes, sir. >> we need to listen to experts talk to each other figure it out with staff look at law, all of that. and i would offer i don't believe that our constituents are necessarily unless they're expert in that area are steeped in that. therefore, they -- we're sent here, are we not? >> yes. >> so represent them and do the best thing we can possibly do for them in this state. >> yes, sir. >> do you know i think this is a different case. because i don't think sir, that -- do you think that we have any special more knowledge than any of the constituents i serve on this particular heritage issue. >> i don't think we do. >> i don't think we do either, sir. i don't think we know any more than they do and many of us know much less because there's true experts out there among our constituents ability this issue. >> yes, sir. >> and therefore, all of a sudden someone -- did you know i heard someone say yesterday, i'm going to vote my way and that's the way it is because i'm sent here to represent and i understand that because i believe, would you know, that you can say that about certain issues. >> sure. >> those taxing issues those complex issues we do. but on this issue my constituency, do you know, says we want to vote. not everyone. because you know, in this issue, there's like any other issue a broad spectrum of thoughts. i have constituents, you know, that want the flag to come down. i understand that and appreciate that. i have far more that want to keep it up. >> i'm in the same situation. >> yes, sir. and to respect them you know, i would support this because i'm on this amendment. >> yes, sir. >> with mr. pits because i helped draft it because i believe we ought to let the people. you know there are those, you know, who say we have a problem with this, don't we, because elongates the process. i get that. i hate to see the process elongated. >> representative taylor, i would tend to agree with that if this had gone through the normal process. but this has been fast tracked and pushed through at such a rapid pace i think there's an exception here. >> mr. corley, do you know that i voted for tshe signee because i was told we would have committee process. >> yes, sir. >> i was quoted in the paper the next day or two saying i agree with this because we're going to have a committee process and vet this like we do any other legislation. >> i can't hear. >> let me get order, mr. corley. representative taylor, i believe the 77 members of the republican caucus were told that this would go through committee and through the full process. >> yes, sir. >> and i find that troublesome. i understand, you know, that the senate, the deliberative body the senate, the great deliberative body, didn't deliberate. go figure. on one of the biggest subjects that we have to deal with emotionally here in the heritage issue, do you know, they didn't deliberate but just for a moment and a half and kicked it over our way. so i think it's a good thing sir that we're doing what we're doing here today. and maybe tonight. and maybe tomorrow. but ultimately, you agree with me? question. that we should let the voters decide this. >> i don't know that we're letting the voters decide it. we're just asking their opinion. >> advisory capacity. >> since this has been rushed so quickly many of us have not been able to fully gauge our district. whereas if there was an issue we knew was coming through the regular process we would have that time. so i would agree. even before you came to this chamber as a legislature you knew your you way around our state constitution because you had to for your job. >> i know my way around a few constitutions. i practiced in georgia. >> so i just wanted to point that out for anyone who might be listening today, on television or whatever, that when you're standing up here saying that there's really to constitutional case that can be made for why this would be -- >> let me tell you this, i can't say there's no constitutional case. what i can say is, the aiken delegation asked for an opinion from the attorney general and it took about two months to get it back, it was 19 pages long, it gave the pros and cons as most legal papers will do, give you both sides. we don't have that here. we have the bottom two-thirds of one page and i think about the top third of a second page, and it's even told to us by the attorney general, this is the best we could do on such short notice. so what they presented to us, does not show what their final decision was. and i don't know how senator groom asked for it. >> you mr. corley i appreciate your putting that in very precise language and that's one of the things that attorneys are often good at. thank you for clarifying that. my point is i just want to clarify to this body and anyone watching, that, you know you don't have any qualms under your oath to protect and defend the constitution of this state of putting this question on a ballot initiative or ballot -- advisory -- >> i don't have any qualms about it, but to a greater degree, i'm standing up here because the decision as i understood from caucus was that the way the ruling would go on this was based on this page and a half that the attorney general provided that's not actually a full opinion and based on what he's put in here, there's nothing to show that an advisory opinion is -- or advisory referendum is unconstitutional. a binding referendum would be unconstitutional. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. chumly is recognized. >> mr. hill is recognized to be heard on this matter. >> thank you. i want to point out here in light of -- >> mr. hill has been recognized. >> yes. >> thank you mr. speaker. in light of my actions here yesterday, i just wanted to point out that yesterday, because the bill was not assigned to a committee the way many of us were assured it would be, so that the public could be heard, the wishes of this body prevailed and that's fine, that's why we have procedure, the procedure was followed, i'm not complaining standing here complaining about that but i am saying this is a second chance to get public input on an issue that is obviously very divisive, very heated and very -- i would dare say important. and so, you know i'm going to be supporting this amendment and i hope that every one of you do as well and i think that any -- if you're going to vote against this you're going to have to answer the question to your constituents why didn't you give me a chance to have -- to get my opinion on this because otherwise, basically you're -- you know you're putting yourself in the position where you're just going to make the decision for them and maybe it's the decision that your district wants and maybe it's not the decision your district wants. so, you know i would just encourage you, you know, let's think carefully about this and let's vote for this and make sure that the public is heard. i can tell you i have received many, many e-mails as several others have mentioned practically demanding we want to be heard on this and we would be remiss to ignore that. >> mr. corley is recognized for questions. >> representative hill, are you like me somewhat concerned about how quickly this has moved? >> i am. mr. corley because when you take a heated issue you don't get to a better resolution by going faster. you get to a better resolution by being deliberative by doing your homework, by asking folks, you know, and there's really no better way, no more meaningful way to ask your constituents than through an advisory opinion on a ballot. >> mr. hill did you know that the late great statesman from south carolina, strom thurman, always preached that you never make a knee-jerk reaction in a political situation? >> you know, mr. corley, i think that's that sounds like wise advice this body should remember. >> he did. and he has a statute out front for now. >> he does. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. corley. >> mr. fallen is recognized. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. hill, in talking about the referendum and i've had a number of questions about the referendum also, from a few constituents, and some of them a little upset when i said that we couldn't have one, but i would like for you to just explain to me and mr. corley i didn't get up in time to ask mr. corley, since you're on the same and not for taking the flag down and for an advisory opinion on a referendum if your district came back and advisory opinion was 70% to take it down, and i know in your heart that you said that you don't want to take it down what would you do? >> you know that's an interesting question. and i'll tell you that what i told people as i was -- as i was going to -- as i was asking for their votes last year, that i never promised that i'm going to stick my finger in the wind every time an important decision needs to be made. but i will say that on matters -- there are some matters that are worth really just checking and making sure there is some questions that deserve to have public input. for instance, in anderson, in my county, there was a matter where two high schools in the same school district, they were talking about merging those two that was very controversial in the anderson community and a few of us on the delegation said whoa we need to make sure the public and community there's community support before we do it. so that's where i see value in this. i never promised that i'm always going to vote based on the results of a poll, but i'm going to vote based on what i believe is right in my heart because ultimately and ultimately i promised my constituents that i would do what was asked but in the best interest of the district and i think a poll would be revealing and a referendum would be revealing in that regard. >> and you said in your heart you think the flag should be left up. if your constituents come back and 73% say they want it taken down would you go with your heart or with your constituency? >> well let me put it to you a different way. >> can you just -- can you not just answer that. would you go with your heart or your constituency? why do you want it if your not going along with it? >> that is a fair question. um, and honestly when we get there, i will really have to think about that. i think i know which way it's going to go, so i don't have to. but honestly -- honestly, i respect mr. corally and a few others that said they would go with the referendum results. >> i wanted to find out why you wanted a referendum because whether you would go for it or not? >> well mr. talon, let's go to a different time in world history and look at other countries let's say germany during world war ii the rise of hitler, there were jews being mistreated and there was public demand for that for aryan supremacy and genetics and if we do a referendum for something that is wrong, should we go along with that just because that is what people want. there is a place for standing on principal. my role here as a state legislator is to protect and defend the constitution of the united states and of this state and if the people of this state don't want to go along with that then they are ultimately going to need to find a different representative. >> do you see the difference between a binding referendum and a nonbinding referendum? >> one -- yes, one is constitutional and one is not, according to what i'm being told. >> so what one do you want? the one that is constitutional? >> the one that is constitutional. >> the one that is constitutional. but it doesn't make any difference whether it is binding or nonbinding. >> but the people that voted for me in district eight sent me here to make a decision and i'm going to make a decision. now i'm not saying that i'm not going to weigh the input of the people in my district because i do and i am and i will, and i have. but ultimately i'm going to make the decision. i'm not going to let some poll make the decision for me. >> thank you, mr. corley is recognized. >> representative hill did you hear representative burns earlier say if his district came back in favor of taking the flag down he would vote to take it down? >> i did. >> did you hear me make the same statement? because if you didn't, i am making the statement. >> okay. >> if the 84th district came back and said 30% said they want the flag down i would probably have a stroke and not believe it but if they came back and 70% said they wanted to take it down i would take it down. >> and i respect that. i'm not saying at this point what i would do because i think i would have to do some real soul searching but i would do that so much searching and make that decision. >> do you think you would be better equipped to do that soul searching. >> i would. >> in two weeks. >> absolutely. >> without any sub-committee. >> yes, sir. >> mr. hill, can you explain the difference between a democracy and a republic. >> thank you, mr. hamilton i was hoping somebody would ask that question. the difference between a democracy and a republic, in a democracy, the majority of the people who vote rule and in a republic, the people elect people to represent them to make decisions for them. that is the difference. and more precisely we have a representative republic -- representatives and senators because we have two chambers here as you well know. and it is up to us to make the decisions we were sent down here to make. and so we have to own that, for better or worse. >> okay. so how does this amendment accomplish that? by putting this decision off a year and a half waiting for that to come back, we're looking at january of 2017 before a new legislature could be seated to address this -- 2017 actually. so what other things should we put on advisory ballot for all of the people help us make our decisions? >> well mr. hamilton, that is why i think having the bill go through the committee process would be the best way to collect the public input and since we did that this is the next best option, the only other option because the bill is not going through committee. not this one. >> mr. hill that is your first ten minutes. would you request your second. >> yes please. >> you didn't answer my question. what oirnl things should we put on advisory? should we put the budget -- >> no. absolutely not. because once again there is information and work that goes into making the important decisions that need to be made in our state and to ask the public to do that, every single time would be -- it is like what is going on over in greece, for those of you -- maybe you have been following what is going on over there, the people in greece in a time of almost civil unrest really have being asked to make a extremely crucial decision for their nation with very little information. and that is a really unwise thing. so we shouldn't be turning to that. if we were to allow polls to make our decisions for us with we no longer have a representative republic, we would effectively have a democracy. >> so what other items should we put out there for advisory opinions? that we decide -- that we vote on every day. what other items? >> not very many. i can't think of another good example. >> how did you come to decide this was the one that we should? >> because it is a issue that is fundamental to our community as a state. and in our interpersonal relations within our state. we want to build unity within our state. we don't want to have division. how do we get that if a punch of people who make a decision in this state without asking the state what they -- what they -- for any input. we just go and unilaterally make that decision. so let me emphasis, it is not just -- it is not just about a ballot initiative or a referendum on the ballot, it is that combined with the fact that we did not give the public any opportunity for input in sub-committee the way they normally would have on any other bill. >> thank you. >> miss henderson is recognized. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. hill, do you happen to know what the voter participation rates were in south carolina for the last two general elections 2014, 2012? >> they were low. even lower in 2012 than in 2014. >> in 2012 did you know it was 44% of the -- of the registered voters. >> that does not surprise me. >> do you know what percentage of the voting age in south carolina is registered to vote? >> i would anticipate it would be something less than 50%. >> so it is closer to about 65%. >> okay. >> so would you feet that an election where under 50% of the eligible voters are registered or maybe 50% to 60% are registered and half of them only vote so basically about a third of the voting eligible age population show up at the voter -- at the poll, what would you -- would you think that is a valid representation of what everybody in south carolina thinks about an issue. >> i think that is one of the issues -- beauty of making decisions in this chamber versus a referendum and that is why i don't think we should allow the results of a poll whether it is by referendum or any other mechanism, to make the decision for us. because what we can say is that 100% of south carolinans are represented in this chamber. >> and that is why we are elected to come and make the decisions. and did you know that one -- would you also agree with me that the media attention we've had on this state in the last two or three weeks and the robo-calls and the mailings and all of that did you know that if we were to put this off to a referendum to 2016 most of that would probably continue for another 18 months. would you agree that would be the case? >> i don't think there is any guarantee that the media publicity and the pressure we're feeling is going to suddenly turn off like a faucet no matter what decision this body comes out of here with. so i hear what you are saying, but this is not the first time that we've had this sort of a -- of a issue to decide here in south carolina and it won't be the last no matter what we do here today. >> well, did you know that i would definitely vote for this amendment for some of the same reasons that i just pointed out which is i don't want our state to go through what we've been going through for another year and a half and it is the reason we are elected, to make a decision based on what we believe the people we represent want us to do. >> i understand. thank you. >> mr. southern is recognized for a question. >> thank you, i almost forgot what i wanted to ask you. but you -- all of this amendment does is allow what you want -- allow the voters an opportunity to vote. is that correct? >> the public i think deserves to be heard on this issue just like they would -- there are different ways to allow the public to be heard. a referendum is one way. sub-committee is process is another way. we denied them the opportunity to be heard at sub-committee so i think we owe it to them to try to give them this opportunity. >> i agree with you. what miss henderson was alluding to wouldn't that be applicable to anything we vote on in south carolina. you only have a certain percentage of people that turn out to vote. >> you are right. and if you watch the board it is not uncommon for some representatives to sit out votes. maybe they are not here or don't want to cast a vote or they are split. >> and it the not uncommon for them not to be paying attention. >> yes. >> that is a big possibility too. and back to what mr. talon was asking you. if 70% in the district voted in a poll they didn't want to pay any more south carolina income tax, would you support that poll? >> nos. >> thank you. >> mr. corley recognized for a question. >> representative hill, do you know that i'm always amazed when i hear a republican make democrat arguments on the floor which happens quite a bit here. >> that is an amazing thing, mr. corley. >> and did you know i'm equally amazed when republicans concern themselves with the opinion of the national news media considering how gracious they are to us. >> yes, sir, mr. corley, i agree with you and i've had some personal experience with that. >> let me ask you, how many personal resolutions did we discuss under the designee, the budget and this. >> maybe four, when you consider the components of the budget. >> okay. did the budget go through ways and means and the sub-committee and through the normal hearings. >> yes. >> did this even get to go to committee? >> no. >> okay. so for the question you had as to what else would need to go on a referendum like this would you agree with me to say that any time we fast-track a bill without letting it go through the process, maybe that is something we should consider for a referendum? >> i think that is -- that is always a great possibility for something that we should consider for a referendum. i think you make an excellent point. >> thank you mr. hill. >> mr. bedding field recognized. >> mr. hill has stepped away from the podium. judge clearly is recognized to speak. >> thank you very much mr. speaker, you know i have been watching and listening to this interchange on advisory opinions on references and all of these things. and i can remember on my days from a circuit judge from this state from a lawyer would come in with an attorney general's opinion and i would say would you get me some more law on that, because that is exactly what it is. it is the opinion of the attorney general. which is just like anyone else's. and quite frankly this general assembly, counties and the body will run to the attorney general for an opinion in a heartbeat. what i'm saying is in deference to my good friend over in the attorney general's office his opinion is much like anyone else's. he does try to substantiate it with the law but by the same token it is once again an opinion. and in south carolina the reason we don't have references is because we don't have a reserve clause in our constitution. you know, like a lot of states california for example where they vote on everything out there, we're not that way. we were all elected by about 39,000 people in our district. not that many vote every time. but we represent those 39,000 and we have a representative system here. that is the reason they elect us to come down here. and you know across the hall, when the senate voted on that referendum issue it was not 22-17, it was 36-3. 36-3. >> ladies and gentlemen in the gallery, it is inappropriate to make comment or applaud. thank you. >> so ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues here in this house i've heard a lot of arguments and interchange on this particular issue. but at the end of the day, we were sent here by the citizens in our districts to do the business of this state and not to prolong things such as this. that is the reason we were voted on and that is the reason that i took the oath of office, to preserve protect and defend the constitution of this state and of the united states. and i think that i'm doing that. and as a result of that, mr. speaker, i would make a motion to table this amendment. >> judge cleary makes a motion to table. spl smith request roll call. roll call is required. the question is tabled on this amendment. smith request roll call. roll call is required. the question is tabled on this amendment. m smith request roll call. roll call is required. the question is tabled on this amendment. r smith request roll call. roll call is required. the question is tabled on this amendment. . smith request roll call. roll call is required. the question is tabled on this amendment. s roll call. roll call is required. the question is tabled on this amendment. >> polls are closed. clerk will tab late. by vote of 71-48 number 33 tables. clerk will read. >> number 34, mr. pitts and mr. kennedy, number 34, mr. pitts mr. kennedy. mr. pitts asked to pass over 34. bringing us to 35. 35 is mr. pitts. >> pass over. >> mr. pitts asked to pass over 35. number 36 is mr. pitts. and kennedy and tool. >> passover. >> again. number 37. >> pass over. >> again. 38. >> passover. >> pass over again. >> and 39. >> and 39 shall be passed over. bringing us to substitute 40. mr. weill. mr. rile. you got it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> let me recognize you, mr. rile is recognized on his amendment. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as i mentioned earlier, there are a lot of concerns as i've read this and as others have as to whether or not there are other monuments on the property that have flags that need to be protected. and you know i've had different people come to me and show me what was done in 2003 with the commission and so foshl -- forth and i've read through that and there is nothing in here saying forever more with standing legislation and i'm very concerned about this and i think we all should be. this amendment is very simple. it simply states that the monuments on the property as of july 1st, remain there, and the flags remain there, unless specifically identified by what we got from the senate, states to remove it. in other words, everything out there today is protected, that is all it does. it doesn't commit to anything else. so if it is there today it stays with the exception of what the senate sent over said this will be removed the issue of the flag. the issue of the flag we're going to resolve here one way or the other, and all monuments and everything to the veterans everything is protected. thank you. >> mr. speaker. >> mr. delanie is recognized for a question. >> mr. ryhal. earlier we heard one representative talk about a specific act that protects the existing monuments. do you remember that? >> yes i do. >> and did you know a statute trumps an act? >> well again that is a debate i don't think we're going to resolve here today. and i wish i had the answer for how this will work out in the courts if it comes to that. from where i'm sitting, it is a simple thing to do, to say, if we're wrong, we took care of it here so we don't deal with it later. >> so you are trying to be put to bed a legal issue that will be resolved in court otherwise. >> no. i'm trying to make sure it is resolved in court ernl wise. >> so you are trying to resolve a legal issue before it gets to court. >> i'm not going to make that determination for the courts. i believe, very, very clearly that this says that those flags have to be removed. and i believe very clearly we need to do something about it. >> mr. bamberg, for what purpose do you rise? >> point of order. mr. speaker i believe this amendment is not jermaine, specifically the scope is very limited to specifically the confederate battle flag and surrounding arrangement. this amendment goes so far as to talk about any flag to be flown on the grounds and for that reason it is not jermaine. >> there quinn, you would like to be heard on this matter. >> yes, sir, mr. speaker. the senate bill specifically states that no other flags other than the american flag and the state flag can fly. so by that virtue if this amendment is not jermaine the bill wouldn't be jermaine to the sonny dodd. >> would you like to be heard on this matter? >> same comments the only flags authorized shall be authorized in this section. i don't know how you read that any other way other than if it is not stated in here, you can't fly it. very clear. >> thank you, sir. >> same comments, the only flags ladies and gentlemen i want to call your attention to the bill itself. and although it reflects other language in section 1-10-10-a, the language that it reflects, initially, is language that already exists. the language that was changed directs -- relates directly, looking at page one of the bill and page two, relates directly to the confederate flag the monument and the issues that, according to the signing todd, concerning the confederate flag of the united states of america and surrounding arrangement of the confederate soldier monument. it appears the language that we're bringing into question is existing language in that section, it is not language that has been amended by the senate action nor do i believe it could have been amended by the senate action based on the signing so i rule that this particular substitute is not jermaine. >> the amendment is not jermaine, bringing us to the next amendment, which is number 41, mr. pits. number 41, mr. pitts. mr. pitts is recognized. mr. pitts is recognized. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm going to move to table this amendment. i had a previous amendment that did the same. >> mr. pitts moves to table amendment 41. all in favor say aye. all opposed. number 41 is tabled. number 42. >> mr. pitts is recognized on amendment 42. >> mr. smith is recognized on point of order. >> mr. speaker just in interest of getting to the ultimate question here, it appears to me in reviewing mr. -- representative pitts' amendments we're now on amendment 42, and amendment 42-54, which are all of the amendments i have on my list are amendments attempting to alter or change monuments not within the scope of the signee dodd. this deals with the spanish american war monument and 43 is the burns monument and 44 is the revolutionary war monument and every one of the amendments, 44 through 54, are all outside of the scope of the signing. and i understand the chair wants to take them up one at a time and if he has to do it that way, i certainly understand but i anticipate it being raised on every one of the success sieve arrangements are all outside of the scope. >> mr. pitts. >> you care to respond before i ask others if they want to weigh in? >> before you rule against me mr. speaker? >> no. i wasn't going to rule against you. i was going to hear argument mr. pitt. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i was simply attempting with these -- with this series of amendments to draw attention to the number of monuments and memorials we have on the state house grounds and how diverse they are and that they, each and every one could come under attack at some point for some reason. >> house come to order, please. house will come to order. mr. smith i understand your point. mr. pitts, i understand why you put them up. i'm going to rule on them one at a time, mr. smith that way, obviously solomon is not here but i understand your point and i think your point is well taken, if we'll name the monument if that is what mr. pits is willing to do and you make your motion and i'll rule on it. okay. all right. so the first one is 42. and mr. pitts, will you tell us what 42 deals with. >> it deals with the spanish-american war monument and its placement on the state house grounds. >> and that monument is not located on the confederate soldiers monument? >> no sir, it is not. >> thank you. i will sustain that order. clerk will read. >> the next amendment is number 43, by mr. pitts. number 43. >> mr. smith i understand the same point of order. mr. pitts, why don't you identify the monument that we're dealing with. house will come to order. sergeants. mr. pitts, why don't you attempt to identify the monument we're dealing with and i will rule on it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this would be important to the upstate, most particularly spartanberg county with the james f. burns monument and where it is located, on the corner of the state house grounds and the fact that it could come under attack at some point in time. >> i understand. it is not located at the confederate soldier's monument. >> no, sir it is not. >> point sustained, mr. smith. >> next amendment number 44, mr. pitts number 44. >> excuse me. >> mr. smith raises the point of order that amendment 44 is outside of the bounds of the amendment, miss hunter -- i'm sorry, mr. pitts, would you please tell us all about this particular monument. >> this particular monument is the revolutionary war general's monument and the placement on the state house grounds and probably important to several folks in here. and mr. speaker i would say that it is not anywhere close to the confederate memorial except that it is on the state house grounds. >> i understand, mr. pitts. thank you for that. sustained, mr. smith. clerk will read 45. mr. pitts, 45. >> mr. cobb hunter, state your point. >> same point, mr. speaker. >> that it is outside of the skeep of the resolution. let me learn more about it if i could, mr. cob hunter. could you describe what the proximity is to the confederate soldiers monument. >> i did a very long explanation earlier today of this particular monument, my respect for it and how beautiful this particular monument is. it is the african-american history monument and it's placement on the state house grounds. and one thing in particular about this monument that it encampuses a long long period of the history of south carolina. i would like to see another monument or two on the state house grounds that follow the same suit mr. speaker, of tracing our -- our heritage and our histories from the beginning of the fine state of a colony to today's present. >> thank you, mr. pits. mr. cob hunter i'll sustain your point of order. clerk will read. >> next amendment is number 46. >> mr. pitts, 46. >> mr. mcknight. excuse me, sir. >> the point of order, mr. speaker, objecting to this for being outside of the scope of the signing resolution. >> and what are we dealing with here? >> this one is unique as it could probably be mistaken for one of our current members or one of our current members could be mistaken for this statute if he rode across the state house grounds on a horse. that would be the the wade general hampton monument ancestor of our own kirk findlay. >> i understand mr. pitts, and the motive being this could be a monument that could come under attack is that correct? >> i think there is, mr. speaker, great concern that this one will come under attack in the near future. >> i think that is outside of the scone of the resolution. i'm going to sustain mr. mcknight's point of order. the clerk will read. >> next amendment is number 47. number 47. >> that is outside of the scope. >> mr. pitts just a minute. i have a plethora of individuals who would like to espouse an objection. mrs. cob hunter. >> i raise a point of order that that is beyond the confines of the signee dodd resolution. >> would you tell us what we are dealing with. >> this is the confederate women's monument and mr. speaker i would like to bring to mind that this group of people suffered severely during the war that we have talked about. during the infamous sherman's march to the sea i was once asked if a there was a person in past or present history that i would like to meet and i said it would be that individual and when i was asked why, i said i would like to return him to the place of origin that he had just come from. >> thank you. we'll sustain the point of order, mr. pitts. thank you. clerk will read. >> the next amendment is number 48, number 48, mr. pitts. >> we'll take mr. king on this, mr. govann on the next one. >> the same point of order. >> outside of the scope of the resolution. >> yes, sir. >> mr. pitts. what other monument are we dealing with? >> thank you mr. speaker. this is the monument of a storied south carolina history maker and prominent states man, strong thurman and it is on the south side of the statehouse grounds. >> thank you, mr. pitts. mr. king i will sustain your point of order. clerk will read. >> number 49. number 49. mr. pitts. >> mr. govan raises the point of order that amendment 49 is outside of the scope of the signee dodd resolution. mr. pitts will you please tell us what monument this amendment deals with i'm sorry. >> yes, sir i apologize for interrupting. it is the richardson monument. and mr. speaker i would like at this point to bring to attention that this list of monuments are the ones that are listed on the tour on the state house tour when people come to visit our state house complex. >> thank you mr. pitts. mr. go van i'm going to sustain your point of order. mr. clerk will read. >> 50. 50, mr. pitts. >> starting to understand how lee felt at appomattox. >> mr. go van you raise the same point of order, that the amendment is outside of the scope of the signee dodd resolution. >> why don't you tell us what amendment we are dealing with and if it is near the confederate monument. >> this is the dr. james sands monument and i believe he is noted as the father of gynocology and it is nowhere near the confederate memorial. >> mr. go van, i'll sustain your point of order. clerk will read. >> 51. mr. pitts 51. >> mr. king raised a point of order that amendment 51 is outside of the signee dodd resolution. mr. pits. >> it is the benjamin ryan tillman monument and it is in the northeast corner of the state house grounds. >> okay. point sustained. >> next one is 52, mr. pitts. 52. >> mr. king again raise the point of order that it is outside of the signing of the dodd resolution. mr. pitts, why don't you tell me what this monument relates to and what it relates to. >> it is the piney monument and it is within the state grounds but not within the resolution. >> i'll sustain the point of order. >> 53. mr. pits, 53. >> mr. cob hunter raises the point of order that it is outside of the signing of the res lug. mr. pits tell me about this monument if you would. >> thank you mr. speaker. this particular monument happened to have been my first debate from the well as a freshman legislator when it was constructed. it is the law enforcement monument that recognizes the thin blue line. >> i'll sustain the point of order. clerk will read. >> 54. 54. >> mr. clerk. >> mrs. cob hunter raises the point of order this is outside of the scope of the resolution. what monument are re dealing with here mr. pits. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this one hurt my heart to have to draft. i guess i didn't have to draft it but i did because i drafted all of the other ones. this one would remove the veterans monument and replace it with foliage. it is on the assembly street side of the state house complex. >> mr. williams raises the point of order that it is outside of the scope of the signing of the god dodd resolution. mr. pitts, i'm going to sustain that. thank you. >> 55. mr. pitts 55. >> what is the point of order mrs. cob hunter? >> thank you mr. speaker. i raise the point of order that this references the south carolina flag and as such is not within the confines of the signing of the dodd resolution. >> i'll give you a minute to read it if you would mrs. cobb hunter, and mr. pitts. >> mr. pitts let me ask you with does it deal with flags flown on the dome? >> it is supposed to deal with the flags on the monument that we have in question but apparently it was. >> this is on the grounds. >> i understand. sherry is looking at the amendment. everybody stand at ease just a moment. mrs. cob hunter, i understand the point of order is outside of the scope of the resolution and i've read it several times. mr. pitt, it looks like it deals with flags in the chamber on the dome and on the grounds and technically, while part of thatond grounds could be the monument, i'm going to rule this out of order but you certainly have time to have a substitute amendment drafted to deal with just the monument if you like, mr. pitts. >> 55 is out of order. 56, mr. quinn, pits and dellain. 56, quin, pits delanie. >> mr. quinn moves to pass over 56. number 57 has been withdrawn. number 57 has been withdrawn. bringing us to 58. mr. lowe. >> passover. >> mr. lowe asked to pass over 58. bringing us to 59. mr. simmer ol. mr. delanie. mr. pope and others, 59. >> we're on amendment number 59. amendment 59. mr. simmer ol is recognized to explain the amendment. >> thank you mr. speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the house, amendment 59 deals with the flagpole and the flag and of course as we know and the debate that we've had and of many of us that are still here were here in 2000 when we passed the heritage act. the heritage act was more broad than any one flag. it dealt with many different aspects of not only things confederate and southern but it also dealt with the new african-american monument that is on the state house grounds. it also protected parks monuments, street names all across south carolina. the senate's bill and what the governor is supporting is to take the flag and the flagpole down. that is what we were sent from the senate, and the governor supports that. i think if we adopt that we breach the heritage act of 2000. what we all know as well is that unfortunately, the flag that is flying on that monument today has been co-opted, hijacked and used by people who are ig noble in their means and used that as a symbol of hatred and a symbol not keeping with what people know south carolinans are and what we have proved as south carolinans over these last dreadful weeks. that monument that is on the grounds honors the confederate dead those men who fought honorably and valiantly for south carolina. we should honor them. unfortunately we have also seen many moves that seek to go beyond the flag, to seek to remove vestiges of what the south was, to remove history, almost a cultural genocide. i think that our best effort is to remove that particular battle flag and replace that flag with one that is time specific one that is for south carolina. it is known as the first south carolina volunteer infantry regiment flag. it is the palmetto blue. it has the palmetto tree. it has a wreath. it was used by our soldiers. it flew at ft. sumpter. i think that is the direction we should go. we don't breach the heritage act. we keep the pole and we keep the flag to honor our south carolinans who fought and dies and gave the ultimate sacrifice and we do it in a memorial way. this bill also -- or this amendment also contained the language that deals with the confederate flag when it comes down and that comes with -- and you can see the flag on the screen behind me, and it is the dark blue, it is not black as it shows in the black and white photo. but it also deals with the retirement of the confederate flag. and we would get a report back so we would be able to honor the dead in south carolina to have their names at the confederate relic room along with the encasement and retirement of the flag that is out front. i think in an effort of being fair i think in an effort of protecting who we are as south carolinans, all of us looking at the heritage that this state is so known for, we have great heritage and we have great love, we are a great people. i'm a proud south carolinan. and i realize as we go forward, unfortunately there have been many negative things said. we have proved otherwise to the world. at this time i would like to present this amendment to you, because i think as we look ahead, i don't know of a time that this banner that you see here has been used in a hurtful, a harmful or a hateful way. i think it is the right thing to do for us as south carolinayans. >> sarveg you mr. sim roll. mr. polk is to be heard now on the amendment. >> ladies and gentlemen, i thought i had taken the cowards way out. i took my family on vacation two weeks ago and you guys wrestled with us coming back here today and i respect that but in the time i've been gone it has been an education for me. i gotten all of the calls where we talk about family members fighting for the confederate assy and i determined that my great great grandfather fought at the great manassas fought at the crater and injured, and my great great grandfather didn't know when to get out of the way but it has been an education for me and my wife and i talked about it and we talked about what that flag meant to me. in fairness it didn't mean heritage. what i saw growing up was the st. andrews flag, the battle flag, whatever you want to call it. it meant something different. i was fortunate that i grew up in the 60s, but not during the battling part of the 60s, back when i thought we could all still be friends. i didn't realize my best friend, breg barnett he was poor i knew he lived with his aunt and our skin color was different but i didn't know why gregory couldn't be in our boy scout troop. i didn't understand when we went to the pta meeting when the guys would make fun of him for being with me. but i didn't live through the struggles or the hard times and so when i saw the confederate battle flag, i saw rain and racism and that is what i saw growing up and that is what i think. so it has been an education for me when i see that i have relatives and they fought. and there was this disconnect of why can't we let it go and put it behind us. why does it matter, that we have family members. and yesterday, and this is a long time coming for me and yesterday we went down to the confederate relic room and with members of this body, black and white and young and old and we looked at that relic room and one of the guys they were telling me about, one of the guys they told me about was richard kickland from camden. his picture is downstairs on the wall had we come in, he is the angel of marry's heights in frederickberg and he believed he had to help. and in fredericksburg, the south was entrenched, the union army was coming across the field and the information i have said they carpeted the field with union bodies. and at sp point richard kirkland kept asking his people his commanders, his confederate commanders if he could go across the field and offer the other side water. he wanted to go out there and help the men he was charged with shooting and killing if need be. and so i learned -- and what i learned is that man showed grace. we had some stickers that said grace and we talked about grace but it was a man that recognized there are two sides to a battle. and there are winners and losers and also commonalities. and so he saw the need and stepped out and did that. that stuck with me yesterday. it stuck with me yesterday when you guys voted for the money for the confederate relic room. that did not escape me. so you too can recognize there is a heritage that there is a history. but when we went down there, the other thing that struck me you want to see a real confederate flag, you go down there and look on the wall. because those are the flags with the blood and the bullet holes and the things that reflect that. no disrespect, but not that flag out front that we bought and ran up that pole. this is the real flags that are down in that confederate relic room. but what that helped me to recognize is we spent time -- as we spent time together, that it is -- and the director down there said, it is about the lives that are lost. it is about the soldiers. i know poor mr. hosy gets tired of being called out, we were talking today, vietnam may not have been popular, they might not have liked -- many of the citizens protested many of the citizens didn't appreciate vietnam or why we're here heck many of the soldiers may not have appreciated why you were there but you went and you not and you gave your lives and the same thing happened with my great grandfather and the same thing with family members. they answered the call of the state of south carolina. and while that is a symbol of pain, there ought to be a symbol of respect here. there ought to be some heritage here too. and when we look at charleston, that is what occurred, that is what brought this about. the truth is charleston wasn't about the flag it was about hate it was about evil mr. gilley ard, it was about a malignant heart but ultimately it was about grace. and those victims showed grace in the way they handled that situation. back when i tried the smith case, the national media came to union, south carolina, and they wanted to help union heal. because susan smith blamed a black man. and there was an african-american laid on the television and she said we appreciate it, but look, we don't need help from the outside to hale because union didn't blame a black man susan smith did. so while outside forces tried to incite it, we didn't allow that to happen. so today doesn't need to be about hate, doesn't need to be about anger or evil it needs to be about grace. we have the stickers on grace. and one thing important about grace. grace isn't earned. grace is freely given. it is given when you don't deserve it. god gives us grace when we don't deserve each other. we give grace to each other, like the families did, when we don't deserve it. press conferences and polls do not give depth to debate. when i first got called i said i want to understand what happened in 2000. some of you were here. i said i want to i'll vote to take down a flag does not give the thorough debate that we're trying to do today. i respect that that's what we're trying to do. you don't let a jury decide before they've heard the testimony, and i think we've been respectful. i think we've been attentive in what we try to do today but now we've decided it's the right place and the right time to deal with this flag. if we're here to talk about this flag, let's talk about the flag. this is a very important distinction. if it's about that flag and if it's about a symbol of hate then there's something we can do about it. if elgts'it's about the confederate war, if it's about history if it's about slavery then maybe we can't resolve that today, but i submit that i can recognize the pain that many of you and your constituents feel when you see that battle flag. i am asking you to see the grace. i am asking you to see the history and the heritage, that many of us that many of our con constituents see in that monument, in that flag pole and in the confederate room. many of us have been threatened. they talk about your job. i say, look i was looking for a job when i found this one. i'm sure somebody is tweeting you sure are, pal, when you get through with this speech but the bottom line is we've been threatened, if not physically politically because if you're willing to show your grace and you're willing to do what's right, sometimes it isn't working with a pole and it's not doing what's necessarily popular but it's doing what's right. we're willing to do that. what i'm asking you here today is let's follow the example of the families from charleston and let's show each other a little grace. what we need on our side is something that signifies we recognize the pain and the loss of the folks who answered the call for south carolina. we tried to find the least offensive means of doing so while still recognizing those legitimate concerns. you know my favorite verse is do nothing out of selfish ambition or vein con see the rather in humility. value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of others. i'm pledging here today that i'm willing to show some grace. i'm willing to work to make sure that banner comes down. what i'm asking is please, please, please you guys show us some grace to the memory, to the heritage for the people of this state so i can feel your pain, you can feel my people's pain and we can bring something together. that's what i'm asking you to support this bill. if the bible doesn't work on ya, i've got another philosopher i want to lay on you. hootie & the blowfish. says with a little love and some tenderness we can walk upon the water, we can rise above this mess. let's rise above this mess find something that we can work together on. it's give and take. let's do it. please show us some grace. thank you. [ applause ] >> mr. spends is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> i am certainly no pastor. many of you are in here, but this past week's sunday school lesson was about the battle of jericho and what happened to the israelites at that point. of the 12 tribes, 2 1/2 had been told by moses they could stay on one side of the river, the river jordan. the others were to go in and conquer kenya, which they were told to do 40 years before and they didn't do. they didn't follow god's orders. so they weren't allowed to go in, but in order for the 2 1/2 tribes to stay on the east side of the jordan they had to agree to send their fighting men across to help conquer kenya. that was done at the battle of jericho. they defeated jericho but they -- when they came back across the 2 1/2 tribes set up a monument as they crossed the river river. well, the other tribes left on the west side looked around and saw that monument and they took it as sacrilege. there was a misunderstanding as to what that monument was about. they thought that they were getting ready to stop worshipping false gods, but you know what they did? they ended up talking about it instead of going to war like the east side of the river wanted to do to begin with and bring them back into the fold, they decided to talk about it and they realized that it was a simple misunderstanding. the point is they came back together and moved forward and did what they did. now, all this morning i stood at this microphone and talked and i talked about the heritage and how i came to the point i am in this -- in this debate, and it's about the heritage in my family. and as mr. pope much more eloquently than i and mr. simons much more eloquently than i said, we are simply asking with this particular flag that has not been abducted, i won't say coopted, i will say abducted by racist groups or hate groups, one that has no negative connotations is the opposite side of the same coin of one that is already on the statehouse grounds and i would ask you to vote with us to support this amendment. >> any questions? >> i'll walk around. >> mr. murphy is recognized. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. pitts, i appreciate you taking my question. i was actually going to ask this to representative pope, but did you know when he -- he was talking about the people of charleston showed grace they showed tremendous grace and did you know that i cannot understand how substituting one civil war banner for another civil war banner shows grace to the people of charleston and to the people of this state? in fact, i think it's a -- i think it's a slap in the face to the city of charleston to the people, to the victims, to their families. i think to place this banner in a -- in a -- in a place of honor, did you know it is just plain wrong. and for us to worry about being threatened politically we need to quit worrying about june 2016 and let's worry about june 2046 and what's in the best interests of this state and not our political careers. >> mr. murphy, i would say that you and i are in absolute disagreement on this. i would say to you that the grace that we're asking for here is not from me, from the city of charleston it's from the opposition on this particular issue. i am not trying at this point to dislodge any part of history or dispute any part of history and i do not think that it is a slap in the face of anyone to ask for the same level of respect that i give. >> any questions? mr. pettingfield is recognized to be heard on the amendment. mr. pettingfield. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, when i came to this podium earlier today i came as humbly before you as i possibly could have come come. i know the hour is late. you feel like we've been through the gauntlet on this particular issue, but i'm going to have to agree with mr. pitts, when i come here and i am respectful and i do my dead level best to be understanding and try to find solutions to a problem that helps to address both sides of the coin, and i stand in this room and i hear people get to a place where they are calling others disrespectful and not honoring a specific situation i'm -- i'm amazed, to be perfectly blunt, because i can tell you that there has not been one person at this podium today that i have heard who has attempted to be negative to either side of this particular coin until just shortly ago. i can tell you that i stand before you today my constituents who have reached out to me on both sides of this issue have attempted to be disrespectful -- i attempted to be respectful the majority of the time. i implore upon you to help, help preserve the respect and dignity that the veterans who have gone before us on this particular issue, we respect all the other veterans. let's have some respect here today. we -- we have a first regiment flag of the union army on the grounds of this property, the statehouse grounds. i'm not here trying to take down anything from anybody. i started out in this -- in this particular argument desiring to do nothing but keep the flag up. i told you earlier about my struggles individually and personally over this issue to be understanding and listen to both sides of this issue, and now you have before you an amendment that puts a flag up on that pole that has not been sieged by anybody most people in this state won't even know it's not a plain old south carolina flag. at least it is period, it is of the era. it takes away the unknowns of nothing what happens to the flag that's coming down. what more respectful option could have been brought to you today than a means to honor the heritage of those who have gone before us and gave their lives in the defense of this state from an oppressive and over reaching federal government than a flag that looks like the one that's on top of the dome? i mean in all seriousness, folks. you have taken folks in this chamber who are probably hard line on this issue and we have gotten to a place where we are willing to compromise. we are willing to help you with your issues and we are asking you today to help us with ours. i don't -- i don't know how it could have been any more respectful. i don't know how it could have been any greater level of honoring our heritage and understanding the plights of today. let's be respectful to one another. let's continue to show grace and love one another and give -- give us an opportunity to do what's right for the people who don't see things the way you do. i'm doing it. again, i'll tell you, this is farther than i ever thought i would have gone. give us some credit. give us your ability to honor folks in a respectful fashion and not overlook this portion of our heritage. mr. speaker i'll take questions if there is any. >> mr. loftus has a question. mr. loftus is recognized. >> mr. speaker. mr. pettingfield, does this amendment do what the opponents of this flag that's on this flag pole here does it do -- does it accomplish that? does it remove this flag that is said by some, and i understand there is both sides of the issue, but doesn't it remove the flag that some say is offensive? doesn't it accomplish that? >> it does. it does, mr. loftus. >> so as has been said it's a matter of give and take. does it know respect those who have shed their blood for their wives, their family because they were called to action? and at the same time remove this symbol that's said to be offensive by some? >> that is absolutely correct, mr. loftus. >> can we ask for anything more in reconciliation? >> not in my opinion, sir. >> and it's a win-win, isn't it? >> it is in my opinion, sir. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. pettingfield. judge cleary is recognized on the amendment. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. you know ladies and gentlemen, much like mr. pope, except i'm just a wee bit older than he is, i grew up during the era of integration. i remember growing up down on second avenue in gapney, south carolina in the cherokee baptist church. in my neighborhood there was a local store contrary to what a lot of the younger members of our general assembly might think, there wasn't a 7-eleven on every corner and there wasn't a grocery store everywhere, but there was a store there that we all used but the thing that always stuck in my mind as a young man was going in that store, and there are two swinging doors there, and on the door frame across the top was whites only. and down the side of that door frame i'm not going to say what was there, but i think you can figure it out. and the person who owned this store was heavily involved in klan activities and had an adjacent piece of property that the klan continually had meetings and burned crosses on, and i always saw that flag. and, you know, i moved across town. my mom and dad had rented until i was 10 years old, and they were finally able to buy their first home and their only home. and the neighborhood that we moved into in south johnson in gaffney was just a wonderful place. from six blocks up at union street there started an african-american neighborhood that was anchored by the limestone baptist church. and it ran all the way down to the corner of south johnson and ninth street, and that's where my mom and dad bought their home. so i grew up with the little johns, the linders the dukes, the browns. they were african-americans and they were my friends. i didn't go to schools with them because our schools were segregated. the older children went to granard high. we went to gaffney high. thursday nights granard had a powerhouse football team that played on the field that gafney did. we would go to their games because their band was a lot better than ours. and they would be at our games on friday night sitting in their section. and i remember in 1962 when the flag went up on this stone, and we can call it whatever we want. you know, i think we would really have a real argument here for heritage and history if the dome -- that flag had flown on the dome since about 1870. like when that confederate soldier's memorial was erected in 1879 out here, which i believe beautifully memorializes all of our ancestors. you know mr. pope my great great, great-grandfather was killed at the secondnassas manassas. so i understand william cantrell, billy cantrell was 35 years old, the father of five children, including my great-grandfather, zebulon zebulon cantrell. so i understand that part. i also understand this beautiful memorial out here that was put up in 1879 and then it was struck by lightning and all accounts say that the soldier was reduced to nothing but his boots and then in 1884 it was replaced and that's what we have now. that's history. that's heritage. and that memorializes all of our ancestors. and i understand the argument that mr. simeral has made so effectively about this flag to replace it, but you know when i think back to those klan activities, what group is going to hijack that banner? you know, there's something significant about the location of this flag around here. it has a fence around it. where i come from, fences are for two things to keep something in or to keep something out. and rather than building fences in something something,uth carolina, i think we need to be building bridges for not only our citizens but for everyone who wants to come here. you know, this is a huge step for our state. the world is watching us. our economic development or jobs and all the things that we want to do here i think that we need to stick with this senate bill this senate that lost their colleague. he was our colleague, too but he was really their colleague. and we talk about taking this flag down, and we need to put it, mr. pope, in that confederate relic room where all of these beautiful banners are displayed and we need to do a lot more down there in order to preserve that heritage. you know, in thinking about all of this i think about as a young child in the cherokee abdu baptist church learning that song, red and yellow black and white, we are precious in his sight, jesus loves the little children of the world. thank you very much, mr. speaker. [ applause ] >> not taking questions are you, judge? judge has agreed to take questions. mr. corlin you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. representative cleary, you sit behind me on the floor correct? >> i do. >> and we're freshmen together, right? >> yes we are. >> and i give you a hard time quite a bit about clemson university, don't i? >> yes, you do. >> do you recall a conversation that you and i had earlier this year in which we discussed the renaming of tillman hall? >> yes i do. >> and you recall that i told you i couldn't support clemson if they were to rewrite history and change the name. >> i do. i don't disagree with you, mr. corelin, that is a part of history. it's like all of the statues and monuments we have around here and i think there is a difference between a monument a statute, and a symbol. >> okay. i'm just trying to clarify if your righteous indignation ends with a piece of cloth on the flag pole and you're okay with a man who actually was a member of the klan? >> was a member of the klan? >> yes, sir. >> you know -- >> ben tillman. >> -- i understand exactly what you're saying. >> yes. >> and i also understand the standpoint of me speaking against this and saying why should we tear down statues but number one, the clemson university board of trustees is going to have to make a decision on that -- >> right. >> -- much like the citadel board of visitors made on asking for the union jack -- or the naval banner to be removed from someral hall. >> but eventually we're going to have to make a decision on ben tillman's statue and what i'm trying to decide by what you said are you offended by symbols co-opted by klansmen? >> i am offended by things i learn through history that ben tillman did. >> okay. >> but i think that is also part of our history and we have established these statutes and monuments and all of these other permanent fixtures and they've been there for a very long time but once again, this is something that started in the 1960s on our dome and then was moved down. and another thing that is very telling to me is the fact that one of the principal architects for moving that flag there, senator now president of the college of charleston, glen mcconnell, has said move the flag. that speaks volumes to me. >> i understand. you don't find historical context in the flag at all? >> i do find historical context. >> okay. >> and i think that's the reason it needs to be in the state museum. we have a wonderful wonderful confederate soldier's memorial right out here in front of our capitol. >> your first ten minutes on the amendment has expired. are you asking for a second ten? >> yes. >> mr. corley let me recognize judge cleary. you are recognized for another question. >> so should we move ben tillman's statue to the confederate war room? >> no, because i think the statue is a fixture. >> so, again i guess my question is is that a piece of cloth is offensive because it's been taken by the klan but a member of the klan is not offensive? >> it is offensive to me that he is out there but by the same token he has been there for quite some time. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. suters is recognized for questions. >> mr. cleary, thank you. mr. speaker, thank you. i want to ask you a follow-up to the question. would you support the changing of the name of tillman hall at clemson? >> no, sir. >> you wouldn't support that? >> no, sir. >> you know there's a move to change the name of it. i'm sure you're aware of that. >> there is a move to change the names of a lot of things, but by the same token i think that i've made my position very clear clear. i think we need to remove this divisive symbol in front of our capitol. if you want to fly this flag at your house or i want to fly this flag at my house then we certainly have a right and ability to do that because we're not saying we're going to destroy everybody's flags. we, i believe, should say that it's just not appropriate for the people's house. >> but clemson is a state university just like the citadel is. when the citadel took down their flag -- >> they can't take it down. they have to get permission to take it down. >> they took it down. >> i also talked to glenn mcconnell sunday too, about what you just said. so you -- so you in favor -- but you not in favor of doing anything at clemson, changing the name of any hall or anything? >> if clemson university comes to us with a name change i'll consider it at that time but not at this time. >> all right. thank you. >> mr. pettingfield is recognized for questions. he's relinquished the podium. i'm sorry. any questions? i can see. members give me a chance. pending question is the adoption of question number 59. ms. horn first. ms. horn asks that amendment -- before i call the vote mr. pettingfield has every right to be heard. mr. pettingfield. >> thank you very much mr. speaker, for allowing me my second ten minutes. i am attempting to be very measured in my comments. this amendment before you today removes the flag that some would say represents hatred and has been abducted by hate organizations organizations. this amendment removes the flag that is currently out front that many of you find offensive. did you hear what i said? it removes that flag. what i just sat here and heard from my friend mr. cleary, was that it doesn't matter what goes back up that pole because somebody could potentially co-opt it. that's what i heard. the flag in question looks exactly like what's flying on top of the dome right now except it has a wreath in it a crescent in it or whatever it's called. a wreath. that's the only difference. so i -- my question to you is is the flag that's flying on top of the dome right now offensive to anybody in this room? if it is, stand up. ask me a question. let's be real with one another in here today. nobody in this room with this amendment is trying to disallow those of you who think the flag has been co-opted, abducted a symbol of hate not to have it removed. this amendment removes it. if you want the flag down this amendment does that for you. i don't know how many times i can stand here and say the same thing over and over and over again. the flag in question to be run up that pole looks exactly like the flag that's on the dome right now with the exception of the fact that it has a wreath in it. if i had not come to this podium or this amendment had read that it was a rej imtal flag, most of you would not have ever known it. in an attempt to be respectful to the people who gave their lives in defense of this state from an over oppressive federal government allow them to be honored. allow them to be respected. they fought for things they believed in no different than veterans who died in more recent conflicts gave their life in defense of this nation. please have some respect for your constituents and those who have gone before us who lost family members in that way and still wish to respect them just as i am respecting the fact that the current flag outside represents things that some people don't like. i have gone through a transformation within myself to understand that is you. honestly, i have went over this thing. i have bathed this thing in prayer. i have reached out to my constituents because i have been so distraught over this process. we have the opportunity to allow this to go through regular order where people had a debate, and they spoke and they heard. we voted down an opportunity for a referendum to give them that opportunity again so we took it upon ourselves not rushing through this in a very very short period of time. i have come to a place within myself that says let's find a better way. what more respectful way can we have today than a flag that looks like what's flying on the dome. none of you want to take it down. guess when that flag came about? in the 1860s. in all seriousness folks. i love every person in this look, black, white, green, yellow, i don't care. >> color doesn't mean anything to me. what means something is the fact that we are being respectful. we are honoring the fact that somebody abducted a symbol of heritage. we've lost lives in charleston related to this whom i want to be the utmost respectful to. , and we have given you an opportunity to allow those who want to have respect for their heritage they have it. you cannot erase history. can't do it. you can try, but you can't do it. the flag that's in question at this time is not recognized by any hate group. nobody's -- we've gotten to a place in here today where we just want to forget about part of what's happened in the past. i can't forget about the wrongs i've done to people. i can't. i've had to ask forgiveness for them. i've had to go to the people i've wronged and asked for forgiveness from them. >> allow us to honor those veterans who gave their life in defense of this state, and let's move forward. again, is there anybody in this room who thinks the flag on top of this dome is disrespectful? >> let me know if you'll take questions, mr. beddingfield. >> i'll contemplate that. >> it's your right, mr. bedingfield. >> in all honesty, i feel my face getting red. probably been that way all day but i feel it right now. i love everybody in this room. i'm thankful for the influence you all have had on my life. i'm asking you today, this amendment respects your position. please respect mine. >> representative delaney? representative delaney is recognized on the amendment. >> i just want to -- mr. speakers i want to give folks perspective about this particular flag, if anyone in here would like to compromise show a little grace. this will be the way to do that. the confederate relic room said this is the most significant september battle flags. this is it. >> it's also the most significant flag to me personally personally, to my family. this flag was used by volunteers, thirteen different counties. it was carried through gid tisburg and coming back to sg and was displayed. but this 1 the most significant flag and this flag has never been could opted by any. >> the riche it's important to me is because it was the last battle flag my family hero ever brought. a fellow from the fire field district. he was a doctor. a graduate of the met call college in 1887. his wife died before the war. he was only 25 years old. and he insists if you read confederate mill rare at this history, the evidence which involves the south carolina troops, that he helped raise the next level. and if you read the southern christian advocates talking about him in the early 1900s, it say the that he rather efficient. he would see him to be shocked in the forehand. the game smells at the end of the seven days battle. leading his battle there, 1862. the same as those five color bearers who carried the same flag in that battle who were killed the teenage paul bearers who were killed within the first 15 of that model. yes, they were fighting with the army of northern virginia as part of 80% of the crew does. in the army of northern virginia. they say if you want to reach a compromise. if you want to show the hair to speem, that you understand a little bit more about them. there's no better compromise then this flag. spending question, the adoption of amendment 59. representative horn moves to table amendment fifty-nine. i saw representatives second his request. pending question tabling motion on amendment 359.

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Charleston , South Carolina , United States , Germany , Tillman Hall , California , Clemson University , Georgia , Virginia , Greenville County , Jordan , Cherokee Baptist Church , Kenya , Aiken County , Spain , Greece , Americans , America , Spanish , American , Sonny Dodd , Richard Kirkland , Jefferson Davis , Billy Cantrell , Glen Mcconnell , Susan Smith , Strom Thurman , Zebulon Cantrell , Kirk Findlay , William Cantrell , Ben Tillman , Benjamin Ryan Tillman ,