A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | June 12, 2014 | Chamber | House Session on Budget

Full MP3 Audio File

The House will come to order. Members will take their seats. Visitors will retire from the chamber.The Sargent at Arms will close the door. Members and visitors please silence all electronic devices. The prayer this morning will be offered by my good friend, Representative Becky Carney. Would ask all members and all folks, those in the gallery and those in here to please stand for the prayer and then also for the pledge thereafter. Speaker changes: Good morning. I'm choosing to read this morning a prayer from ten years ago that was offered in the House, by then we had House chaplains, the Reverend Jim Lambeth and Reverend James Harry and some visiting ministers. I'm praying today a prayer from Reverend Chad Neil from Fuquave Arena Presbyterian Church. Let us pray. Gracious and loving God, I pray that you would be with these gathered here today. Bless them and guide them. Give them wisdom to see beyond the rhetoric. To see the truth of the issues at hand and the impact it will have on the lives of the people they serve. Give them the courage to make difficult decisions. Let your hand be upon them as they do their work. Speak to them and through them. Oh God, on this day, may faithfulness be chosen over politics. May truth be chosen over patience. May charity be chosen over all else. Oh God, be present in this time and in this place. Amen. Speaker changes: Representative Speciale, would you lead us in the pledge please? Speaker changes: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Speaker changes: The gentleman from Union, Representative Arp, is recognized. Speaker changes: Mr. Speaker, the journal for June 11th has been examined and found to be correct. I move it be approved as written. Speaker changes: Representative Arp moves that the journal for June 11 be approved as written. Those in favor will say aye. Speaker changes: Aye. Speaker change: Those opposed no. The ayes have it. The journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials, or papers addressed to the General Assembly of the House? Introduction of bills or resolutions, the clerk will read. Speaker changes: Representatives Cunningham, Earle, Whitmire, and Horn. House Joint Resolution 1262. Suicide Prevention Resolution. Speaker changes: Rules, calendar, and operations of the House. Speaker changes: Representative Pierce, House Resolution 1263. Support Fatherhood Father's Day. Speaker changes: Rules, calendar, and operations of the House. Messages from the Senate, the clerk will read. Speaker change: Members, Senate Bill 744 on your calendar is removed from the calendar and will be referred to the Committee on State Personnel, without objection. Speaker changes: So ordered. Speaker changes: Members, we're about to go into recess. Are there any notices of announcements at this time? The gentleman from Davidson, Representative Younts, is recognized. Speaker changes: I'd like to make motion. Speaker changes: If the member would hold on the motion just a moment. Speaker changes: Representative Daughtry is recognized to send forth the committee report. The clerk will read. Speaker changes: Representative Daughtry for Judiciary Committee. The following bills assigned to Judiciary Sub Committee B. Senate Bill 574. Appearance bond valid for certain time period. Speaker changes: Noted. Now, the gentleman from Davidson, Representative Younts, is recognized for a motion. Speaker changes: I move that we recess subject to ratification of bills and resolutions, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referrals of bills and resolutions, appointments of conferees, introduction of bills and resolutions to reconvene at twelve noon. Speaker changes: Representative Younts moved, seconded by Representative Hollo, the House recesssubject to ratification of bills and resolutions, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referrals of bills and resolutions, appointments of conferees, and

Counter to reconvene later this afternoon at 12 noon, those in favor please say aye, oppose no, the house have, the house states a recess. The house will come to order, members please take your seats. Visitors please retire from the chamber, ladies and gentlemen of the house, visitors in the gallery please silence all your cell phones and personal electronic devices. Reification of bills and resolutions. The clerk will read. Enrolling clerk post falling bill ?? as per bill 573 an act to broaden the permitted use of storm water fees. As per 1103 an act to require the court to consider whether a juvenile petition has been properly verified and jurisdiction has been has been invoked. As per 1108 an act to make technical and clarifying changes to the duplin county board of education and the board of commissioners of duplin county local officials in harnett county must be done by unanimous vote in certain instances. As per 1131 an act to exempt clay county from state wildlife laws with respect to opossums between the dates of december 26 and january 2 Chapter bills to be noted. Members please take your seats. The house will come to order. Members ?? in the back of the chamber speaking with the pages, I ask them if any of them had any points during the summer for any educational summer activity. The young lady here up in the front of the chamber said she was going to ?? and state her name is casatty and I ask her for music training I guess and ?? would you play an instrument she says no to sing so what kind of music she says opera and I said have you ever sang the national anthem and she said yes I have so would you want to do it today and she said no but then we talked about the pages and there was only one no vote and I know it's violation of the rules to I do performance in the chamber by any member who would object have to sing the national anthem is entitled to raise an objection but without objection I would like for cassatty to sing our national anthem and I hope all member stand up and visitors in the gallery will please stand. O say can you see by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming, Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous

[singing of The Star Spangled Banner] Speaker: Cassie that was awesome! Thank you! Reports of standing committees and permanent sub-committees, Representatives Jordan and McGregor recognized - set forth, the clerk will read. Clerk: Representative [xx] Judiciary Subcommittee B, House Bill 1246, armed detention officers for Sythe County, favorable committee substitute, unfavorable to the original Bill. Speaker: Committee substitute calendar, original Bill, unfavorable counter, Representatives Jordan and McGregor recognized. Set forth report. The clerk will read. Clerk : House Bill 1250, amend the definition of dangerous firearm favorable Speaker: Counter. House Bill 1252, unneeded [xx] and Columbus. Clerk: Counter. Speaker: Representatives Jordan and McGregor recognized. Set forth report. The clerk will read. Clerk: Senate Bill 574, [xx] ballot for certain time period, favorable is the substitute House Committee, unfavorable is the Senate Committee substitute. Speaker: House Committee substitute, counter. Senate Committee substitute, unfavorable counter.Representative Jordan, please state your purpose. Rep. Jordan: To appoint personal privilege. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized for appoint personal privilege. The House will come to order. Rep. Jordan: Thank you Mr. Speaker. As the representative who represents Watonga[?] County in Appalachian State is located, I can only say, Wow! Thank you. Speaker: Representative Dodson, please approach the [xx]. Representative Enscombe, please state your purpose. Rep. Enscombe: Ladies and Gentlemen, without objection, we know that this going to be a long session. We may have a brief break, but not a long one. So, without objection, Room 12D is suspended. Also, without objection, Room 12H is the code rule, and the tie rule for Representative Brandon is suspended. Speaker: The House will come to order. Calendar. House Resolution 1260, the clerk will read. Clerk: House Resolution 1260, House Resolution expressing gratitude to the men and women who protect the safety of our natural resources, honoring those who have sustained injuries and honoring the memories of those who lost their lives in line of duty.

Resolves. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will read the resolution in its entirety. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whereas, on March 12, 2014, United States Forest Service Officer Jason Crisp was killed in the line of duty in Burke County, along with his service dog, Maros; and Whereas, thousands of men and women like Officer Crisp proudly perform their duties as marine patrol officers, wildlife enforcement officers, forest rangers, and park rangers throughout the United States and the State of North Carolina; and Whereas, Section 5 of Article XIV of the North Carolina Constitution declares it to be the policy of this State to conserve and protect its lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizenry; and Whereas, Section 5 of Article XIV of the North Carolina Constitution also declares it to be the proper function of the State to preserve as a part of the common heritage of this State its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches, historical sites, open lands, and places of beauty; and Whereas, G.S. 113‑44.8 provides that the State of North Carolina offers unique archaeological, geological, biological, scenic, and recreational resources, and finds that these resources are part of the heritage of the people of this State and should be preserved and managed by the people for their use and for the use of their visitors and descendants; and Whereas, the officers of the North Carolina Marine Patrol, Wildlife Enforcement Officers of the Wildlife Resources Commission, and Rangers of the State Parks System and the State's Forest Service are dedicated public servants and work tirelessly to uphold these provisions of the State's Constitution and General Statutes, fulfill their duties to preserve our State's spectacular natural resources, and assure the safety of the State's citizenry in enjoying these resources; and Whereas, the origins of the North Carolina Marine Patrol may be traced to as early as 1822, serving to protect the State's extensive marine and estuarine resources; and Whereas, the North Carolina Marine Patrol has responsibility for ensuring sustainable marine and estuarine fisheries for the benefit of the people of North Carolina and has jurisdiction over all coastal waters, which includes monitoring 2.5 million acres of water and 4,000 miles of coastline; and Whereas, many members of the Marine Patrol have been injured in the line of duty, and one member of the Marine Patrol has died in the line of duty; and Whereas, the origins of the Wildlife Resource Commission may be traced to 1947, when the General Assembly established the agency to conserve and sustain the State's wildlife and inland fish resources; and Whereas, the Wildlife Enforcement Officers of the Wildlife Resources Commission have responsibility for enforcement of the inland fishing, hunting, trapping, and boating laws throughout the State; and Whereas, many Wildlife Enforcement Officers have been injured in the line of duty, and seven Wildlife Enforcement Officers have lost their lives in the line of duty; and Whereas, the origins of the State Parks System may be traced to as early as 1891, when the North Carolina Geological Survey was established to protect the State's natural diversity and to encourage opportunities that promote stewardship of the State's natural heritage; and Whereas, the Rangers of the State Parks System have responsibility for management of more than 217,000 acres included within the State Parks System and protection of the many millions of visitors to sites within the System each year; and Whereas, many Rangers of the State Parks System have been injured in the line of duty; and Whereas, the origins of the State's Forest Service may be traced to as early as 1891, when the North Carolina Geological Survey was established to protect the State's natural diversity and to encourage opportunities that promote stewardship of the State's natural heritage and the first State employee was appointed to carry out forestry work; and Whereas, the Rangers of the State Forest Service have responsibility for management of the rich and diverse forest resources within North Carolina, which enrich the lives of all North Carolinians and provide us with clean water and air, wildlife, recreation, and forest products; and Whereas, many Rangers of the State Forest Service have been injured in the line of duty, and 26 Rangers of the State Forest Service have lost their lives in the line of duty since 1950; and Whereas, it is fitting to honor and commend the exemplary group of men and women who have served and continue to serve our State and nation and routinely endure dangerous and difficult conditions.

In the performance of their duties and those that have been injured and lost in the line of duty through the service to their state and nation and have therefore be it resolved by this house of representatives, section 1 the house of representatives expresses its profound gratitude and appreciation to the North Carolina marine patrol officers, wildlife and patrol officers, and rangers of the North Carolina forest service and North Carolina state park system for their extraordinary service to the state. Section 2, the house of representatives wishes to honor those who have sustained injury while performing their duties and wish to honor the memory of all members of the North Carolina marine patrol, wildlife enforcement offices and rangers of the North Carolina forest service and North Carolina state parks who have lost their lives while performing their duties. Section 3, the house of representatives extends it deepest sympathies to the families of the individuals referenced above who sacrificed their lives to help preserve and protect North Carolina’s incomparable natural resources from the mountains through the coast and ensure that they may be safety enjoyed by the state citizenry each year. The people of the state of North Carolina owe debt to these dedicated public servants and solemnly pledges that they shall never be forgotten. Section 4, the house of representatives honors the memory of the United States forest service officer Jason Crisp and sends its deepest sympathy to his family. Section 5, the principal clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the North Carolina marine patrol, North Carolina wildlife resources commission, the North Carolina division of parks and recreation, and the North Carolina forest service. Section 6, this resolution is effective upon adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Dobson please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the house, before we begin what is sure to be a lengthy and spirited debate in just a little while, I hope we can take a few minutes to put things in perspective. When I think about what makes our state special, I really think about two things. One is our natural resources. It really is amazing all that we have right here in North Carolina. If you’ve ever taken a Sunday afternoon drive on the blue ridge parkway in the fall you know what I’m talking about. If you’ve ever spent a summer day on Lake Norman, you know what I’m referring to. If you’ve ever walked the shores of our coast you know that we truly do live in the most beautiful state in the country. The other thing that I think about that makes our state great are the men and women who protect our natural resources and who protect our people. The number one objective as we all know of any level of government is to protect the people that it serves. There are men and women across this state who every day when they get up and go to work they literally risk their lives for each and every one of us. One of these men is Untied States forest service officer Jason Crisp. Jason began his career as a part time deputy with the McDowell county sheriff’s officer in 1997. He became a full time deputy in June of 1998 and worked there until March of 2004. Jason stayed on there as a reserve officer with the sheriff’s office until March of 2014. In March of 2004 officer Crisp began his job working with the United States forest service. He began his job on the grandfather ranger district as a timber marker and graduated from the federal law enforcement training center in 2005. For ten years he served with the forest district, his district covered almost 190,000 acres covering five large counties. It was said of Jason by the forest service that from the brown mountain OHV areas to the ??? gorge wilderness, Jason knew every nook and cranny of the district. On Wednesday March 12, 2014, three months ago to the day, officer Crisp was off duty at home working on his house that he was building for his family when he got the call to assist in a manhunt. Officer Crisp didn’t ask questions or complain, he knew..

It was his duty to serve us. That would be his last day he would spend on earth you see, he and his partner his dog?? were both queued in the line of duty that day. Jason was kind of the guy that personifies North Carolina values. He loved his wife Amanda and his two boys Gary and Logan. He loved his church and his community. It's men like this of make north Carolina special. Men and women across this state weather they work in emergency services, local law enforcement, state law enforcement or in Jason's case federal law enforcement. And by been the kind of man he was and by going into public service and taking an oath to protect natural resources of our state and our people, I think this is the best way to sum it up officer Jason Chris left three world a little better than the way he found it. Mr. Speaker thank you for the opportunity to speak I comment the resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion further debate. If not request before the house the passage of house resolution 1260. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. .117 have voted in the affirmative none in the negative. House resolution 1260 has been adopted and will be ordered printed. Ladies and gentlemen of the house the chair wishes to extend a thanks and condolences to the family members of Officer Chris and I have others that I will recognize from various organizations here for the resolution. The family members present are ??, officer Chris's mother, JP Chris his father, Amanda Chris his wife, Gary and Logan Chris his sons, Brian Chris his brother and Braising Chris his nephew. Please stand and please accept our condolences. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Ladies and gentlemen promotion of Robertson and gorge on behalf of all the members. The chair it's also happy to extend the curtsey of the gallery to North Carolina worldwide resources commission, division of law enforcement cornel john Abbens, Major Chris ?? master office Jonathan Lucas from the division marine fisheries and marine patrol officers cornel Jim called , major Dean damson, captain Steve Anthony, law enforcement officer Daniel ipock, from state's part law enforcement Michael Amber, Brian ??, Jessica Williams, Rob Preston and Toby Hall please stand and let us thank you for your service. [SPEAKER CHANGES]House bill 1067. The clerk will read. Committee substitute for house bill 1067.A bill to be entitled an act to deannex two described tracts from the corporate limits of the town of murphy. The general assembly of North Carolina enacts [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Wells please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To debate the book Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker. The members of the house we had a great load on this on second reading, I appreciate your respond on third. Thank you a lot. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion further debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES]If not request before the house the passage of the house committee substitute the house bill 1067 on its third reading All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record please do so this time. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 114 have voted.

in the affirmative, none in the negative, the House Committee substitute to House Bill 1067 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate by a special message. Ladies and gentlemen, without objection, the Chair is going to move ahead of the next bill on the calendar to dispose of others before we move to the budget bill. House Bill 1034, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute Number 2 for House Bill 1034, bill from the Tyler Act, to amend the laws related to Local Firefighters’ Relief Fund, the Statewide Firefighters’ Relief Fund, the Rescue Squad Workers’ Relief Fund, Worker’s Compensational, Firefighters’ and Rescue workers’ Supplemental Pensions for Firefighters and Rescue Squad Workers in the Volunteer Fire Department Fund, and Volunteer Rescue EMS Fund is recommended by the Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee General Assembly of North Carolina, next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. This is a bill that was a recommendation of the Program Evaluation Division. And actually, it was four bills and were merged into one bill. The bill has already had a visit into Appropriations and now it’s back on the floor. Also, it’s had a visit over in the Finance Committee so this is the last stop. There were four reports done by the Program Evaluation Division and the first report was dealing with the local Firefighters’ Relief Fund. And the second report was dealing with the Rescue – the statewide Firefighters’ Relief Fund, excuse me – the Rescue Squad Workers’ Relief Fund, the Worker’s Compensation Fund and the Pension Fund. And, as I said, we merged all of those bills into one. It’s a rather lengthy bill but I will briefly tell you what it does. We took the four bills and went into subcommittee and spent many weeks trying to fix this issue. It’s a problem that’s been pending for nearly 19 years now. And when we get this bill passed and signed by the Governor, everybody is going to be very content and pleased that we have answered all the questions. Members of the House, you can proudly go home and tell your local firefighters that these are the things that you have put in place that will help them to do their job with their pension and also with some of the other advantages, such as physicals and firefighters will also have local benefits. First of all, in the Relief Fund, it simply provides guidance on the minimum and maximum level of the relief fund balances. It adds – and this is in addition – annual physicals to the list of allowable expenditures for your local firefighters. It provides a line-of-duty death benefit to firefighters – that’s new. And it also requires the Department of Insurance to create a database – a database where you can make one phone call when you get a call from your local firefighters asking about his or her retirement. That database will be at one place – the Department of Insurance – and it requires the local relief fund boards and the State Fire and Rescue Associations to act with prudence with respect to the relief funds. Secondly, with the Worker’s Compensation Fund, like certain statewide associations eligible for membership, requires the Department of Insurance to conduct an annual actuarial study. It provides a list of requirements for the State Fire and Rescue Commission to include in its contract for a third party administrator. On the Pension Fund it pays pensions to all participants age 55 and over regardless of whether or not they are retired from firefighting or rescue squad work. The benefit is paid by the 5% reduction of

Going to the grant fund. With that, Mr. Speaker I can honestly say that everybody will set the table and all of your local farmers and the department of insurance, everybody is on-board with this and I would hope to get your support. I’ll answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak briefly on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. As representative Howard has indicated this bill represents quite a journey of compromise. The challenge was constantly to satisfy all of the stakeholders and I must tell you that in our attempt to satisfy all of the stakeholders, it was like squeezing a saturated balloon. It [fix], one section you squeeze it and it will bulge in another place and we’ve worked over a period of weeks, even months until we finally reached a compromise and that’s what this bill is. It’s a compromise of all of the stakeholders. So I urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. Representative Insko, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to ask the bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, find understand reading this quickly. This includes a formula to redistribute the fire fund? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not exactly. What we’re trying to do is determine that each fire department has a minimum amount of money in their local department in case they have issues that they need to address. So we set it at a certain dollar amount per person that’s a member of that particular fire department. If the departments have accumulated excess funds, Representative Insko, nothing will be taken from them and everybody is at peace and very happy about this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. Though the fire chiefs across the state have signed off ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Ma’am, they certainly have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Committee Substitute number 2 for House Bill 1034 on its second reading. All in favor, vote Aye. All oppose, vote No. The clerk will open the vote. Members, please record. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 114 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative; the House Committee Substitute number 2 for House Bill 1034 has passed its second reading without objection. Will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Richardson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I would like to be noted as voting yes on the previous bill. Thank You. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You and the Chair anticipate Representative Gill’s request would both having been voted Aye on the last measure or the last vote. Further discussion, further debate. Representative Meyer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to be recorded as voting Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may be recorded as voting Aye. Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the House Committee Substitute number 2 for House Bill 1034 on its third reading. All in favor, say Aye. All oppose, no. The Ayes have it, the House Committee Substitute number 2 for House Bill 1034 has passed its third reading. Will be sent to the Senate by special message. Senate Bill 463, the clerk will read. Before the clerk reads, Ladies and Gentlemen, upon motion of Representatives Daughtry and Langdon from Johnston County, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Dr. Johnson and members, including the student body and the student government association. Please stand and let us welcome you. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 463, a bill to be entitled an act to amend the law providing for minimum standards for jail dormitories to allow counties to house sixty-four inmates per dormitory so long as certain minimum standards are met. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ramsey, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the house, this bills comes over to us from the.

There's no known opposition that we are aware of in support of our county commissioners association and sheriffs association. The only thing this bill does is make our minimum detention center standards equal and apply uniformly across all counties. The current law has a different standard for counties in excess of 300,000 population and those counties in less than 300,000 population in this bill just equalizes that standard and the intent of the bill is to allow counties to house the additional inmates in a more efficient way. And I commend the bill and stand for any questions that you may have. [Speaker Change] Representative Alma [sp] please state your question. [Speaker Change] To ask a question that the bill sponsors. [Speaker Change] Representative Ramsay, does the gentleman yield? [Speaker Change] I yield. [Speaker Change] The gentleman yields. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mister Speaker. How in these minimum standards are we taking into consideration any of the requirements coming down through the federal priya [sp] law? [Speaker Change] We would certainly have to meet the priya [sp] requirements. If you notice int he bill they would still have to meet the space requirements under 153 A. And previously the counties under 300,000 could house 56 and the counties over 300,000 could house 64. So [??] applied prior to the passage of this bill, it's a federal law so it applies regardless, Representative Alma. [Speaker Change] Follow up. [Speaker Change] Does the gentleman yield? [Speaker Change] I yield. [Speaker Change] The gentleman yields. [Speaker Change] And does this also include the new requirements under that law for separation of minors or those under the age of 18? [Speaker Change] To my knowledge this bill does not address this and if other members may have some knowledge to the contrary, this only equalizes those standards. It's my understanding that we have to meet those priya [sp] requirements regardless of what occurs relating to minors and other things. So this bill does not impact priya [sp] in any way the counties that will have to meet the priya [sp] requirements. [Speaker Change] Thank you. [Speaker Change] Representative McNeal please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] I just rise to say that in any jail there's different classifications of inmates. You wouldn't put someone of 16 or 17 years old in a dormitory anyway. Dormitory is basically what it says. It's a large room that has bunk beds in it. People that you're concerned about, Representative Alma would be put in separate cells. [Speaker Change] Further discussion. Further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute number 2 to senate bill 463. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [pause]. Members please record. The clerk will [??] machine record the vote. 114 have voted in the affirmative. None in the negative. The house committee substitute number 2 to senate bill 463 has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [Speaker Change] [??] of North Carolina in act. [Speaker Change] Further discussion. Further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of house committee number 2 to senate bill 463 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The house committee number 2 senate bill 463 has passed its third reading. Will be returned to the senate by special message. [pause]. Ladies and gentleman by motion of Representative Howard is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to members of the North Carolina school councilors association. Please stand and let us welcome you. Ladies and gentlemen we are about to begin the debate on the budget bill.

Speaker Changes: now we have a couple of i think one other matter i think we need to take care before we move to the bill but just for purposes of setting the tome for the debate .The chair is ordered that the vote time is reduced to ten seconds ?? the chair will encourage you near the seats during the voted and we also ask to you to make sure to look at your light when the chair says please record so we don not have much of time for the number of votes we have here to recognize the members to have the vote recorded we would appreciate your indulgence special message from the center ??, Speaker Changes:house bill 133 ?? Charles Douglas international airport commission is an agency within the city of Sher law and to extend the Sher Law and Charles Douglas international airport over side committee by one year.House bill 292, Speaker Changes:counter for two stage June 24th.The chair apologizes June 17th, Speaker Changes:house bill 292 scenic committee ?? by filling of actions by certain local boards education challenging the sufficiency of local funds the appropriation to public schools by the county board of commissioners, Speaker Changes:counter without objection for immediate consideration, Speaker Changes:house bill 292 the ??, Speaker Changes: scenic committee subside for house bill 292 of the bill has been titled and that too more ?? and more filing of actions by certain local boards of education challenging boards of commissioners general of north Carolinian acts, Speaker Changes: representative ?? please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: for motions sir, Speaker Changes:the gentlemen is recognized to state his motion, Speaker Changes:the motion that we ?? for senate committee bill substitute for house bill 292, Speaker Changes:the motion has been stated if gentlemen wish to recognized to debate the motion, Speaker Changes:yes sir, Speaker Changes:the gentlemen has been recognized to debate the motion, Speaker Changes:this is a local bill that hasn't included in the union county now includes in the gas and Nash counties.I want to say that this is completely supported by the delegations of union county by certainly believe it's the ?? of the gas and Nash counties, Speaker Changes:i want to a little brief on this is a two year more ?? on bill.This is gonna prohibit union gas and Nash county school boards filing the loss of ??.The current situation is that the union county school board had filed the loss suite in 2013 from section 115 the decision has rendered and the board of commissioners has appealed that currently we are waiting for the result of that appeal from the decision appeals court.The board will simply require that uni county that gash and Nash counties will not file losses until we get the results from the court of appeal and i thank you very much, Speaker Changes:representative ?? please state tour purpose, Speaker Changes:to debate the bill, Speaker Changes:the gentlemen is reognzed to debate the motion Speaker Changes:at times i debate the motion.I almost dont know what to say so the second setion of the bill obviously engagaes this body and by helping g the side and taking or oyt away the ?? with regard to the resolution of the lawsuites i think that a bad poicy but i think it is the decision to be made and i wouldn't neccesarily object if everyone agreed to that andi dont think that it is bad policy.My objectionis teh patternly unconstitutional first section of the bill,section 1 says at times i debate the motion.I almost don't know what to say so the second section of the bill obviously engages this body and by helping g the side and taking or out away the ?? with regard to the resolution of the lawsuit's i think that a bad policy but i think it is the decision to be made and i wouldn't necessarily object if everyone agreed to that and i don't think that it is bad policy.My objection is the ??. unconstitutional first section of the bill,section 1 says

If it said simply we’re putting a moratorium on the school board county commissioner disputes and their ability to file suit under this statute, only. I think again, really bad policy. But it is a policy. We created that statute, we can put limitations on that statute. But read with me what section 1 says. Notwithstanding those three general statutes, a local board shall not file any legal action challenging the sufficiency of the funds appropriated by the board of county commissioners to the local school expense fund capital fund ?? vote. We have no ability to tell anyone, any citizen including a school board, they may file no suit under any other statute or under the Constitution of the United States or under the Constitution of North Carolina, challenging the local fund. We have a right to say they can’t do it under our statute, but that’s not what this says. This says if a school board, for example, wanted to file a Leandro Claim, saying that Union County or Nash County’s funding by county commissioners violates the Constitution of North Carolina. Or a Section 1983 claim that they violate the civil rights of their students within the district with regard to this. That we are barring them from the court. That is language way too far. And that may be the problem. And I recognize asleep on the switch when the motion was just made to put this on the calendar. Now not in my view the right way to do it but it was done and we didn’t object. But let’s have the discussion now since it’s on the floor. We can’t tell the legislature has no ability to tell any citizen of this state including school boards they may never file any suit for a particular ground for any reason. So if you want to protect your bill, at a minimum you would amend this thing to stick strictly to the statute. Now, I’m perfectly fine because I don’t like the bill if it goes forward but if I’m the school board’s attorney, I’m going to tell them file suit right away. Go ahead and do whatever you’re going to do because we have told them something we have no constitutional ability to tell them. So if you’re trying, or if this bill is trying to simply limit the lawsuit under that statute, it doesn’t do just that. It attempts to limit the school board’s ability to file any lawsuit. And I am opposed to this bill and I suggest we not concur and at least send it to conference, or to a committee to talk about this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry. Representative Iler, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Glazier would yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is purely an understanding question on my part. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] When you say legal action for any reason, I’m reading legal action challenging the sufficiency of funds as appropriated by the board. Doesn’t that limit it just to suits for the funds? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The funds, but it takes into account any cause of action you would have for that. So for example one reason school boards are able to sue or they do sue, is because they have direct cause of action to sue under this statute if mediation fails and all that good stuff. The school boards before that certainly had the ability to sue tougher lawsuits, right? Tougher lawsuits to win, if they believe that the county allocation violated the Constitution of North Carolina or the Constitution of the country. So there were other causes of action they can file. In fact now what we’re telling them, instead of going through the more narrow lens of what we give them to do, mediation if it fails, then file the lawsuit, we give direction about how it’s to be filed, what to do, now all we’re saying is because this bars everything, well what they’re going to do is file the everything. To bar the lawsuit, which will have far greater damage capacity. In fact, in trying to narrow this, you’re forcing the school boards to file the federal constitutional claim, the state constitutional claim, all those lawsuits and I don’t think that’s at all what we’re trying to do here, even if you agree with the policy. That’s what you’re going to force state boards to do if this passes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brody, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to request that we displace this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is withdrawing his motion. The bill will be displaced. The House be at ease. [PAUSE] Ladies and gentlemen, having no other

We're going to begin in a moment, that though having been displaced, there is no other matter on the counter for today. Before we do that, we have a young man that we would like to extend the courtesies of the floor. He was not properly introduced with the pages when we introduced the pages the other day so I thought we should properly introduce him now. I believe this is Representative Burr's older cousin. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Chair would like to extend the courtesies of the floor to Parker Medland from Richmond County and in the gallery, his proud grandfather, Gene McIntyre, County Commissioner from Stanly County. Parker, thank you for your service. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Surprises never end, do they around here? Senate Committee substitute for - House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 744, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 744, a bill to be entitled an act to make base budget appropriations for current operations of state departments, institutions, and agencies, and for other purposes. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Dollar rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, let me begin by thanking our full chairs of the appropriations committee, Representative Linda Johnson, Representative Justin Burr, Representative Bryan Holloway, and Representative Pat McElraft. I also want to thank all of our many chairs of the subcommittees, their committee members and the full appropriations committee which is about 2/3 or 3/4 of the members of this body. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, our vote today is about the future of North Carolina. We have traveled a long and challenging road since 2009 and in 2011 our state budget was in a crisis. We had record deficits, lowering revenues, and a very painful, slow recovery. We certainly were coming out of and dealing with the deepest recession in a generation. Now we are in recovery and our state's in recovery. Over the past three years we have worked to close the deficits, modernize state government, create a more innovative and inviting climate for business in our state. We have worked to grow our economy and to create jobs that are so important to all our families and businesses here in North Carolina. Mr. Speaker and members of this House, today's budget is sound, it is responsible, and it is focused on our highest priorities. Let me mention just a few of the highlights. The budget before you today for your consideration has a 5% increase for teachers in our state, it contains a $1000 flat raise for most state employees plus benefits, that's roughly a 2.3% increase and additional 5 days of leave time for state employees. We have a 1.44% COLA for state retirees as well and teacher retirees. This state budget establishes a risk reserve of some 117.8 million dollars for Medicaid to be administered by the State Office of Management and Budget so that we can have greater flexibility and accountability in our Medicaid program. It adds funding for repairs and renovations and it brings our savings reserve in the state of North Carolina, our rainy day fund, up to 741 million dollars. As our subcommittee chairs will discuss briefly, we have addressed a range of important issues facing our state.

We're addressing job retraining, veterans, the development of a compensation system for teachers, child protective services, coal ash issue, criminal justice issues, transportation issues, issues involving culture, history and the arts, and mental health services, as well as those - protecting those - critical health care services that are important to our most vulnerable citizens. I am pleased to say, our budget enjoys broad public support all across North Carolina. Today, the actions we take will help ensure a bright future for the citizens of North Carolina and greater prosperity for our businesses. Mr. Speaker, the Chairs and Members of the Appropriations Committee are proud to submit this budget to the consideration of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And at this time, and in a very timely manner and fashion, I would like to recognize the nurse of the day, Miss Lynnette Fort from Goldsboro. Thank you for being here. [APPLAUSE] Your services may be required at a moment's notice and we're glad you're here. [LAUGHTER] For what purpose does Representative Horn arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Horn is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is a great day. A great day for education in North Carolina as we roll out the House budget for all of our citizens. As you've already heard, this budget implements an average 5% pay raise for all teachers - all teachers across this great state in our public schools. It keeps our teaching assistants - the folks that are helping those teachers in the classroom, the folks that are closest to the kids on a day in and day out basis - keeps the teaching assistants, all of them, in the classroom. It funds the retirement system, funds workmen's compensation and tort liability. We begin a new era, a pathway - a career pathway - for teachers that's going to result in keeping high quality teachers in the classroom. They don't have to move out of the classroom to move up. They can stay in the classroom, take on more responsibility, help each other to a greater extent, and end up helping our kids in the classroom every day, raising the bar for everyone. The North Carolina Center for the Advancement of Teaching stays in effect, where it's going to help our teachers transist[sic] into the digital environment, expand their ability to help our kids' reading abilities and promote an exchange of ideas among teachers so they can learn from each other. It lives up to our commitment on Master's pay, when we told teachers a couple of years ago, "You go get your Master’s, we'll pay you a Master's supplement." We're living up to that and restoring that Master's supplement for all teachers that are in that pipeline and then opening up - beginning the process of opening up - a Master's supplement for teachers teaching in their - with their - major and in their profession. What I'm really trying to say is math teachers - math majors - need to be teaching math and not PE or chemistry. It pilots a new approach on attaining a Master’s degree that melds practical application and a digital environment into the classroom. What a concept! We're going to teach teachers in a classroom environment to be even better teachers. It addresses the needs of our smallest communities with a revised and improved, expanded small counties' allotment. It helps reduce stress on our kids in Read to Achieve and recognizes the challenges and builds upon what has been initiated in the Senate. Improved further legislation, we're hoping to continue to improve that. We're going to test a couple of new concepts like virtual charter schools. We're going to increase the amount of money in textbooks and recognize that not every LEA is at the same level in progressing toward that digital environment which we set as the goal for our schools before this decade is over. Community colleges increased compensation - we added a fourth tier to closing the gaps, allowing community colleges to hire the needed staff for these highly needed

Career fields. We are instituting the yellow ribbon program, both in the community college and the university system by putting nearly $6 million there for matching grants to help our veterans get that education to help them transition to an even greater extent into our North Carolina economy. We’re restoring teaching fellows, a program that was near and dear to the heart of many of those in this house and across the state. We’re keeping our CFNC, the college foundation of North Carolina, an active and viable program. We have three new initiatives in the university system including game changing research that focuses investments in key areas, next generation power and electronics we all remember when President Obama came to North Carolina and committed a major new program right here in North Carolina and we’re going to participate in that, and we are supporting a highly successful new teacher support program initiated here in North Carolina that’s giving hands on support to our teachers in the classroom where the rubber meets the road resulting in improved student outcomes. Ladies and gentlemen I am incredibly proud to have played a small role in developing this budget. I’m proud to present this budget to you, I ask for your support. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you for that brief explanation, but very thorough and timely. For what purpose does Representative Murry arise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To briefly debate the NER budget. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentlemen is recognized to debate the NER budget. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. It’s been a real pleasure to work with Representative West on developing the budget for natural and economic resources which includes the department of agriculture and consumer services or the agriculture department, department of labor, DENR, department of commerce, and the wildlife resources commission. The total budget includes $382.2 million, I’m going to hit the highlights. We’re investing in plant science initiatives and food processing initiatives through NC State through the department of agriculture. This will help produce 21st century jobs in the agriculture field and we think it’s a good investment, $600,000 investment through the department of agriculture and NC State. We’re also providing an additional one million dollars support farmland preservation through the farmland preservation trust fund around military buffers. This money will not be able to be expended until there’s a federal match. This helps protect our first industry, our number one industry agriculture, and our number two economic impact industry the military industry at the same time and it also requires like I said a federal match. We also transferred the animal welfare program ??? account to the department of public safety as recommended by the governor from the department of agriculture. The department of labor is real simple, it’s just a 2% management flex cut it’s around $330,000. Within DENR the major expansion includes 18 new positions and $1.8 million for the cleanup of coal ash. The major distinction between the house budget and the senate budget on this item, it doesn’t require that the general assembly pass a coal ash bill in order to expend these funds, DENR can get to work. We all think we’re going to be passing a coal ash bill but we just didn’t want to predicate these funds being spended based on a new policy position by the general assembly. Additionally we’re providing an additional one million dollars in nonrecurring funds for clean water management trust fund and an additional $7 million for the trust fund as appropriated in the reserve section of the budget. They bring in total funding available from the general fund in ’14-’15 to $21.6 million for clean water management trust fund. Additionally the reserve section of the committee report provides an additional $3 million for a parks and recreation trust fund so we’re expanding both clean water and part F in the DENR budget this year. Wildlife resources we’re reducing funding to the wildlife resources commission by about 9% through the combination of a 2% management flex reserve and the budgeting of about a million dollars in additional federal grants so swapping out general fund dollars for federal grant dollars. In the department of commerce we are establishing a limited resource communities grant program, it has $1.25 million for local government sand non-profits to help limited resources communities. Additionally we’re providing in CDBG funds community development block grants. The department is directed to provide $637,500 in recurring funding to draw down additional funds and we’re offsetting positions from the general fund.

To help advance CDBG funds getting back down to the community level. The rural economic development grants, the new department in commerce that helps our rural communities is getting an additional $2.2 million in non-recurring funds for expansion for rural grants, but this does not include administrative costs, so we want to make sure that money actually gets down instead of getting spent in the department for admin. We want it to get down to our rural communities. And additionally, we have an apprentice program and $300,000 received from the community college system to waive fees associated with this apprenticeship program. We have various and asundry special provisions dealing with various items I’d be more than willing to answer any questions about any special provisions. I know we’re going to have a few amendments. But at the end of the day I think the NER portion of the budget helps us advance clean up of coal ash. It helps the department of commerce re-invest money in additional funds for biotechnology center in our rural communities and a Main Street solution so we get money from the state down to our communities so they can help grow jobs, and advance every sector of the state. So I’d ask your support for the budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. For what purpose does Representative Lambeth of Forsythe arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the health and human services appropriations committee has been responsive to the needs of the citizens of North Carolina, while being fiscally responsible. The overall HHS budget is $5.1 billion. A decrease from the 14 15 certified budget of 32 million or .63 percent. The key provisions of the HHS budget does not change Medicaid eligibility. It includes 9 million of additional funding for Pre-K, an increase of 13%. It includes an increase of 5 million for foster care assistance programs, which is an 18% increase in response to an increase in case load. 27 million new dollars to enhance the child protective services including funds to reduce county departments of social services case loads. It adds 4 million to fund the health information exchange. It continues to respond to the mental health needs of our state, with an additional 9.3 million for crisis service and intervention. It fully funds the school nurses. It fully funds the Wright School. It supports the governor’s plan to reform Medicaid with an additional 1 million, rewarding quality, not quantity. Also authorizes 7.3 million to fund unpaid liabilities the HHS owes to the local management entities for community mental health. And I would point out that in the reserve accounts, we’ve also set a 117.8 million dollar reserve for Medicaid for some of the unknowns and the unexpected. Thank you for allowing me to share that information. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Daughtry arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. First of all I would like to say I have the finest co-chairs in the General Assembly, and John Faircloth, Pat Hurley, and Jamie Bowles. They are outstanding and they are dedicated to making sure that justice and public safety works in our state. And I am pleased to inform you that in North Carolina, crime is down and continues to decline. In 2011, our prisons had 41,030 inmates. Today we have 37,827 inmates. Because of that decline, we have been able to close 17 prisons since 2011. As far as juvenile crime goes, in 2001 we had 660 youths in the youth development centers. Today we have 210. 700 to 210. Arrest in teenagers under 16 is down by 40%. That’s because the courts have tried different programs. They’ve got a deferred prosecution program, a first offenders program, but most of all our justice reinvestment act that we passed some years ago is working in our state. It allows probation officers to get the attention of

The offender by quick dip and that three or four days in prison makes all the difference in the world and we’re very proud of the fact that our prisons are down and crime is down. As far as our budget goes we closed two prisons, two women’s prisons, the Fountain Correction Center for Women and North Piedmont Correction Center for Women. We’ve reduced the appropriations for the AOC by 6.6%. As far as expansions go I’m proud to say we increased the funding for the state highway patrol mashers and clerks staff by having the steps reinstituted. We have a nonrecurring allocation of $1.8 million. It’s provided to DPS to purchase vehicles for the due one hundred new probation and parole officers positions that were funded in the 2013 budget. These are the probation and parole officers that will be doing the work in the justice reinvestment act. We funded two dedicated confinement in response to violation, it’s called CRV facilities, one in Burke County and one in Robinson County. We increased the state highway patrol uniform budget by $873,000 to $1.6 million, we want our patrolmen to look good. We transfer the state bureau of investigation to the department of public safety. This was done and all the concern was to be sure that the SBI remains as independent as possible. We believe we’ve accomplished that by having the director of the SBI appointed for eight year term by the governor subject to the confirmation by the general assembly and he cannot be fired except for cause, good cause. We moved all misdemeanors from the state prison system where they currently are and put them in the local jails. This is a voluntary program and the sheriff’s association is in favor of it and those counties that wish to participate may and those who do not wish to participate may not. These are some of the highlights of our budget, we are proud of it, we hope you will support it. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does Representative Shepard from Onslow rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the budget sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] You’re recognized to debate the budget. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Ladies and gentlemen of the house it’s my pleasure also to speak to you about the transportation budget. We worked real hard on this and I think we’ve got a real good budget as far as transportation is concerned. The combined state transportation budget is 3.14 billion, that’s a 4% increase. The forecast revenue is 3.8% higher than it was and that’s due to the motor fuels consumption increasing and rebounding highway use tax. Also the highway fund is an increase of 3.4%, the highway trust fund is an increase of 5.2%. We will be eliminating 298 positions in DOT of which 270 are already vacant and have been vacant 180 days. This budget also increases contract resurfacing in the state to 11.5 million which would be 5.5% of the state highway system. It also provides 50.3 million to the payment preservation fund. It also increases 8 million to the economic development fund in the state and that is changed to reoccurring. Also the ??? and municipalities is 9.5 million, an increase of 9.5 million. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members give your attention to Representative Shepard, you wouldn’t want to miss anything now. Representative Shepard. [SPEAKER CHANGE] No we wouldn’t want them to miss anything that’s for sure. Also and some other highlights in this is we continue funding the ??? programs in the state and with that being said and done we fully fund the fairies and also we have approximately 7.5 million dedicated annually to go to rehabilitation replacement of the vessels. Also something else that we continue to fund is the driver education program, the transfer to DPI for the high school driver education programs and that is reoccurring. Finally the strategic privatization program STI increased 68 million and will continue to increase to 680 million over a ten year period of time and that’s all I want to share, Representative Torbett I think will share the rest. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does Representative Torbett of Gason rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Debate the bill Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] You’re recognized to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen Representative Shepard touched on some and I’ll go over the virtual cornucopia of transportation the lights in the provision section. It allows for drivers’ licenses renewal online with no age..

One of the large things that we are very pleased about is it improves road quality standards by restricting the use of tar and gravel treatment such as chip seal, in favor of other preservation treatments that produce a smoother surface. And when I say that, that's from mountain to sea, across the state. It requires D.O.T to report on a number of lane miles that are not included int hat schedule for lack of funding and they will report back and we will be looking for funds needed to fully fund contract resurfacing and pavement preservation activities. Requires D.O.T to let 60% of contract resurfacing this year in July and August, which in essence means we're putting the peoples money to work on the roads faster for them than ever before. That changes to 70% next year. It establishes a permanent fund for pavement preservation and sets outsourcing requirements so that 80% of this work is outsourced in 4 years, pushing more money into the private sector. Outsourcing a pre-construction activity, we're going to be pushing more of that into the private sector. We mentioned the removal of fairy toes on all fairies therefor this body would not be penalizing anyone in North Carolina simply because you live close to water. That being said, Mister Speaker, that's the high points and we are available for any questions. [Speaker Change] What purpose does Representative Saine of Lincoln County arise? [Speaker Change] To debate the bill. [Speaker Change] You are recognized to speak on the bill. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mister Speaker. I have the privilege of delivering to you the information technology portion of the budget. If you were in appropriations yesterday, you know I went through this very quickly. If you were not in appropriations yesterday and you have not come to see me with any questions about the IT budget, please do prepare your questions but since most folks know what we did during the last session in terms of improving IT, I will give you just a highlight real quick. Just 2 sentences and I will be glad to yield to any questions. This years general fund appropriation for the information technology fund and information technology reserve is reduced by 13% from 42 million to 36 million. The information technology internal service fund which is supported by agency receipts is maintained at 190 million dollars. We are moving forward with some of our security initiatives. A refresh as we get away from the old desktops and roll out new desktops and virtual desktop. And of course working across multiple agencies. Mister Speaker, i'll yield the floor and be glad to answer any questions. [Speaker Change] Thank you. And last but not least, for what purpose does Representative Cleveland from Onslow arise? [Speaker Change] To speak on the bill. [Speaker Change] You are recognized to speak on the bill. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mister Speaker. First i'd like to thank my coach-air [sp] Representative Brown and the members of the committee for their work and support on making sure that we have met our targets. The [??] area, we did not close any historic sites, they all remained open. Funds for 3 new positions in state board of elections for investigators that were approved, we appropriated 10 million of the housing finance agency for a loan program for the low income housing. Established a tax payer assistance call center in Gilford County to provide better customer service to individuals with tax related questions. That's basically the highlights. I appreciate your support. [Speaker Change] Thank you. For what purpose does Representative Wadell of Columbus arise? [Speaker Change] To send forth an amendment. [Speaker Change] The clerk will read. [Speaker Change] Representative Wadell moves to amend the bill on page 139, lines 50, by rewriting the line to read. [Speaker Change] Representative Wadell is recognized to explain his amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mister Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house. This amendment, what it does is it takes that line and it exempts out aquatic [??] control projects.

One of the reason is the state requires one to one match, many of you know we got a situation in Columbus counties that we were invited by ?? and we put our match in last year for this program we have already started working on the program I am in 201 counties down, the counties cannot afford to come up with a 2 hunted thousand match. This could be negotiated out with the diner and I would appreciate your support and will stand to answer any question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion on the debate. Hearing not the question before. Excuse me. Representative?? for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker it would have probably been just as well to go on we have no opposition to this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, members of the house you have herd the motion of the flow from representative Waddell to adopt this amendment to this propose committee, house committee substitute for Senate bill 744. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor vote aye, all oppose will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 107 have voted affirmative and 10 in the negative. The amendment it's adopted. None in the negative excuse me. The amendment is adopted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does representative geiger of MaCallum burger rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sent forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative geiger is recognized to send forth the amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative geiger most men the bill on the page 261 line 82, 34 by the leading those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative geiger you ate recognized to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Its read more confusing than it actually is, it's repelling the repel. If you will currently reallow chancellors to authorize capital projects up to a million dollars for that board of governor's approval. This section would reduce that amount to a 3 hundred thousand dollar cap, chancellors would like that cap to remain in a million dollars has been requested by the UNC system. There are lot of reasons we talk about fires franker system, elevator system that waiting three months to get that approved by the board of governor seems humorous and we would ask that you to support this amendment which repeals the repeal and keeps the current statics in place with the million dollar cap ?? take any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? For what purpose does representative McGrady from Henderson rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For two purposes. On the last vote I was here and I would like to be recorded as aye and then to speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You will be recorded as voting aye and you ate recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chairs of the appropriation committee support this amendment, it seems to be a reasonable one and will put as in alignment with the Senate on this and that is a good thing, this is giving the chancellors back the authority they have already got and we urge you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the house is the adoption of the gadder amendment. All in favor vote aye, all oppose vote no. The clerk will open the vote The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 113 voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. The amendment has stated, has been adopted. For what purpose does Representative Jackson rise of Wake? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is an amendment AMD-78V1 representative Jackson.

Bill on page 169 line 42 through page 189 line 44 by deleting the lines and. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ?? you are recognized to debate you amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you ladies and gentlemen this is the same amendment that many of you have heard yesterday in appropriations I have no illusion that taking representative Steven name off the amendment and put mine not gonna give me any more votes but I gonna still stand up and try to convince you why this is the wrong policy to put in the budget and it is a policy and you can tell us policy because it's 20 some pages of special provisions in order to accomplishment. Our constitutional system is set up as a system of cheques and balances we don't necessarily need three branches of government but the founders thought it would be a good cheque and balance. And we don't need a house and a Senate we both serve to?? terms in north Carolina but on most occasions it's a good thing to have cheques and balances and I want you to look at what we are creating in the department of public safety. Last session we transferred the state highway patrol budget from transportation to JPS or department of public safety. This bill before you today transfers the ?? systems licensing board to DPS. It transfers the rape crisis and domestic violence center program for a department of administration to DPS. It transfers animal welfare from the department of manifestation to DPS. It transfers the AVC commission budget from commerce to DPS. It transfers AVC ware house budget from commerce to DPS. It transfers ALV from justice to DPS and filling the transfers in SBI from justice to DPS. President James Madison believe that cheques and balanced would protect liberty in a large republic. We are creating a very very large department very large indeed. Now what offer and support of moving SBI is that it might save money and on that I would ask you to look at your budget on page R3 line 11 and tell you that this move we don't know is gonna save us some money. There was a line at it saying DPS is directed to identify million dollars and savings so that could be some possible argument the data belongs in the budget. That's it we can't even tell you where million dollars gonna be safe what positions gonna be ?? we don't know. Further it says consolidation of all the major law enforcement agencies in criminal information sections under DPS should result in additional savings but again e don't know and that's my point. We want to transfer so we through into the budget so the majority can't vote against it. And not even study whether it makes sense financially, legally, public corruption for whatever reason again I am gonna close with a quote from president Madison the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in same hand weather of one a few or many or weather hereditary, self-appointed or elective may justly be pronounced very different definition of teary. I am gonna ask you to take this policy out of the budget listen to law enforcement, listen to our local shares. We can study it we well be back in January let's see how it might have fed law enforcement how it might have fed public corruption prosecution and how much money it might actually save. I'd ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose representative Lewis of Harnett rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For motion Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognize for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move to amendment 3 to lay upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You heard the motion and second there be no discussion. Lay this amendment upon the table. Vote aye for affirmative, no for negative. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 61 voted in affirmative and 50 in the negative the motion lies upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Murray from Wake rise?

Representative Murray of Wake arise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The members recognize to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray moves to amend the bill on page 142, lines 29 to 32 by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray, you are recognized to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you look at your budget bill in special provisions on page 142, we are changing just a few words on lines 29 through 32. What we're doing on this management flexibility cut within Deener, if there's an add-on within the House budget that wasn't adopted, and add them in the Senate budget that's not adopted. We are limiting their discretion, but they can't run on those places because obviously we made a decision that we didn't adopt those cuts either. And so we are limiting that discretion to make sure that if there is a state park or a state attraction that was proposed for closure, in the Senate budget, that was absolutely not adopted, a state attraction that was in the House budget, the stated for closure, that was ultimately not adopted then Deener can't run to those state attractions to find their management flexibility cut. So I move for adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. For what purpose does Representative McNiell from Randolph arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to be recorded voting yes on the Waddell amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You will be recorded voting yes. For what purpose Representative Reives of Chatham arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just up to send forth an amendment. So I can wait until we do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Further discussion or debate. Hearing under question for the House is the adoption of the amendment sent forth by Representative Murray. All in favor vote aye. All oppose vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will let the machine and record the vote. 116 voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. The amendment is adopted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Moore arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move that the budget bill be temporary displace so that we can move to not concur on the local bill that was up earlier so that a conference committee can be appointed. It should take for just a moment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, the budget bill will temporarily displaced. Motion carried. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to ask that House Bill 292 is before, I believe, Representative Brody has a motion not concur that the chair would recognize him for that purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purposed Representative Brody arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The members has recognized. State his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I would move that the body not concur with the House Bill, the Senate Committee substitute for House Bill 292, and I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions from the members? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hearing none the question before the House, is the motion for Representative Brody not to concur on House Bill 292. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 114 having voted the affirmative and one in the negative. The motion to concur has been adopted. The motion not to concur has passed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Part in this, and the conference will be appointed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm looking. Representative Brandon from Guilford. For what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to be recorded voted aye on the last vote please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Member Bill will be recorded as voting aye. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Speciale arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To propose an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send

Forth an amendment. The clerk will read. House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 744 is back before the body. Proceed, Representative Speciale. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale moves to amend the bill on page 136, line 50 by inserting the following language after that line. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale is recognized to explain his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bill to establish North Carolina commercial fishing resources fund. A little bit of history here. Last January some fishermen met with legislative leaders about funding for observers in the large mesh gill net fishery. Observers are requiring as the result of an agreement between the state and federal government to protect sea turtles, called an ITP or an Incidental Take Permit, the provision required by the Federal Endangered Species Act. The observer program has a price tag of about $1.4 million annually, and the legislators explained to the fishermen about the status of the year’s budget, asked if they could go home and figure out a way to fund half of those costs. So the fishermen agreed, went back to the coast, talked about it with other fishermen, came up with an idea to totally fund the observer program by doubling their license fees. They took the idea to North Carolina fisheries, which is a 60 member trade organization that has represented commercial fishermen since 1952. After a four hour debate which was very spirited, the fisheries association board voted unanimously to endorse the proposal that included the doubling of six commercial license fees and would generate between 1.4 and 1.6 million dollars. What I’m telling you is that the commercial fishermen, the people that represent, they came up with a proposal to double, almost double the cost of the license they have to purchase every year, in order to fund the observer program. So, what also is in this bill is a board to ensure that that money is using the way it’s supposed to be used, and it consists of commercial fishermen from around the state, representing all areas of the state. That’s the bulk of the bill, ladies and gentlemen, and I ask you to support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Murray from Wake County rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I would ask that you oppose this amendment. This was in the Senate budget and it was not in the Governor’s budget. And so, I don’t have any problem with using commercial, increased commercial licensing fees on the at-sea observer program. We’re doing that in this budget. That’s what the General Assembly does. The General Assembly appropriates money. That’s our constitutional responsibility. We don’t set up special funds and special boards to do that. And so we need to keep the responsibility of the General Assembly on appropriating money within this body instead of setting up this special resources board. There is a similar resources fund within the Division of Marine Fisheries on the recreational side. I actually had this conversation with Representative Speciale. We should try to treat both sides similarly. On the marine fisheries commission we have three commercial representatives. And we have three recreational representatives. The recreational representatives help the marine fisheries commission determine how some of their extra fees are allocated. Instead of setting up a separate board, what I think we should do and what we’re trying to get to in conference on this budget item, and what Representative Millis actually put an amendment in our subcommittee to help study this issue, to make sure it’s operating fairly and above board. And so what I’d like to see happen, and I’m more than willing to work on this in conference with folks from the commercial fishing association. I think they’re great. They’re great guys. But what I want to make sure, is that we’re treating both sides fairly. That’s the goal of the marine fisheries commission. And so if you you’ll look at North Carolina General Statute 113-175.1, it clearly designates how the marine resources fund is allocated. It has control over it with the treasurer, and it also makes sure that the director of the marine fisheries commission has ultimate say in this. That’s what the marine fisheries commission is for, to help

...qualls and strifes in this industry, and this resource that we have, instead of setting up special funds that are designated and are controlled by a subset of the industry. So I'd ask that you oppose the amendment. [Speaker changes] For what purpose does Representative McElraft from Carteret arise? [Speaker changes] To speak on the amendment. [Speaker Changes] The Lady is recognized to speak on the amendment. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chair. While I agree with the amendment, in a way I agree with this language, because it is different really from the recreational fishing license in that the State set this license. This was a group of commercial fisherman that put this fee on themselves. But there are some issues that staff has brought to our attention, so if we vote this amendment down, it will go into conference. We can get those issues straightened out, because I don't like exactly the way it's written the way the Senate has done it. So if I promise you if we will work this to where the commercial fisherman are happy with it once we get it into conference. But we will take out the issues that staff had with it, and I truly do think there are some issues with it with the way the money will be handled. We'll make sure that marine fisheries' Louis Daniel is with it -- everyone will be happy. And that we will do it ethically with the money. And will make sure the state treasurer, everybody, everything -- The flow of the money is good. But I will promise the commercial fisherman that we will protect the money that they voted themselves to put in this fee. And it will be used specifically and only for putting these turtle observers on their boats, and not for other general fun things, so I ask you to vote no on this amendment, so that it will be in contention, and we can do it right. [Speaker Changes] To what purpose does Representative Tine of Dare arise? [Speaker Changes] To debate on the amendment. [Speaker Changes] You are recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, sir. This one's a difficult situation, because it's got long history that Representative Speciale just barely alluded to in regards to it. And one of the things that I think our commercial fisherman are most sensitive to is each time they've come to the table and they give a little bit, they end up with something that they didn't think they were gonna get. And that, respectfully to the Chairs, I don't know what the problems that staff have said, and there might very well be. So that needn't be addressed. But my concern is that once we take the language out and it then goes behind doors and we have two chairs that are working in our best interests that perhaps we may not get to where we need to on the back-end, so this is unfortunately one of those burden the hands that I ask that you vote yes to make sure that we have this in there. If we need to do some tweaks to it, we always have the corrections that we run at the end, and we can do some language tweaks. This just shows the folks that made a good-faith effort to raise the funds themselves for this program that we're still with them. [Speaker Changes] Thank you [Speaker Changes] To what purpose does Representative Pittman of Cabarrus arise? [Speaker Changes] To ask Representative Speciale a question. [Speaker Changes] Representative Speciale, do you yield? [Speaker Changes] I yield. [Speaker Changes] Representative, when the fishermen agreed to this hike in their fees, do you understand it to have been that they had the understanding that this board being established would have been part of that agreement? [Speaker Changes] That's correct, this is part of the package that was presented. We will allow you to charge us almost double, they've got the fee schedule in there. But this The board we want to set up to make sure the money that is left over after the observer program is taken care of be used for the advancement of commercial fishing. So it only makes sense that commercial fisherman from around the state get put on this board. [Speaker Changes] Follow up, Mr. Speaker? [Speaker Changes] Follow up. [Speaker Changes] So that being the case, would you say that if we hike the fee without establishing the board, they're sort of getting a bait-and-switch, or something to that effect? [Speaker Changes] I do, that was the agreement. All the folks that were involved, Deaner, there were...

a list of them somewhere but I have so much paper on my desk. But every body involved had agreed to the fact that they would do the board... do the fee hike. One of the concerns,..one of the concerns on that board was oversight and the oversight would be the head of Deanor[sp] Period. [Speaker changed] May I speak on the amendment? [Speaker changed] Gentleman's recognized to speak on the amendment. [Speaker changed] Thank you. Sounds clear to me that these gentlemen or folks did make an arrange... an agreement in good faith expecting this board to be part of the arrangement. And I think we'd be double-crossing them to raise their fees and not establish this board that they understood would be part of the agreement. So I am in favor of the amendment. Thank you. [Speaker changed] For what purpose does Cleveland of Onslow arise? [Speaker changed] To speak on the amendment. [Speaker changed] You are recognized to speak on the amendment. [Speaker changed] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm in favor of this amendment. The commercial fishermen in this state are in dire straits. Our fisher industry is choking to death. These gentlemen stood up and said, "We're forced to have these observers on our boats. The state can't afford the money to do it; we'll do it." And I think they have the perfect right to have their representatives overlook that fund and make sure it's used properly. If there are problems with it, moving forward, it could come back and we could address the problems. But I would encourage you to vote for the amendment. [Speaker changed] For what purpose does Representative of Iller of Brunswick arise? [Speaker changed] To speak on the amendment. [Speaker changed] You're recognized to speak on the amendment. [Speaker changed] Since my county's also mentioned in here, I'd better speak to the amendment. I agree with what Representative Cleveland said. Every time they come to the table, they seem to come away short-handed particularly versus the Recreational Fishers Handle people who are trying to get them to change their nets to be sure not one turtle will pay the price for million of pounds of fish. So Im'a support the amendment. If it has to go to conference, if it has to be tweaked, in future legislatures, then so be it. Thank you. [Speaker changed] For what purpose does Representative Speciale of Craven arise? [Speaker changed] To speak a second time on the amendment. [Speaker changed] You're recognized to speak a second time. [Speaker changed] The...this agreement was endorsed by Demner[sp]and all nine members of the Marine Fishers Commission. It's a good deal. One, one of the concerns the staff had, again, was this board, six member board, of folks that are not government officials, okay, being involved in determining what the remainder of this tax money will go to. The bet has been ?? the bill because the decision is not theirs alone. It has to be...the Marine Fishers has to also sign off on anything...any plans for the future they have for what will help the industry and what this remaining money might be spent on. So I think it's a good deal. I think it's great that the citizen's involved in a problem within the state have stepped up to the plate, come up with their own ideals on how to fix it, are willing to pool their own money out of their pocket to take care of it. And I think we should support our commercial fishermen by supporting this amendment. [Speaker changed] For what purpose does Representative Murray of Wake arise? [Speaker changed] To debate the amendment a second time. [Speaker changed] You're recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [Speaker changed] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The report that Representative Speciale is referring to actually recommended more fees than what we're doing in the budget. They wanted to double....they wanted to double the fees that we increased in the first year of the budget. What we did, we went, before the fees were increased we went, we doubled that fee. So the amount of money that's being collected...collected here just about, exactly, funds the At Sea Observer Program, which is why this fee has been increased. The purpose of this fee was to increase, was to fund the At Sea Observer program. Commercial fishermen can not fish if we don't have that observers due to a federal mandate that's unfunded. So one of the ways we're funding it is through this fee increase. It's a wash. It is a wash. There is no extra money being talked about. This special fund could very well be populated with no money. We're spending the exact increase on the At Sea Observer Program and my contention is that we need to use the existing structure of the Marine Fishery Commission similar to how we treat recreational fishermen and any additional funds in their ??

We need to treat them the same. There’s no special fund for recreational fishermen with a board of recreational fishermen on it. That does not exist. We use the marine fisheries commission to do that so we should treat both sides of the equation similarly which is the goal of the marine fishers commission, it was our goal as chairs of the NER working on this budget, and I can tell you, if we going to increase fees to commercial fishermen their fees should go to help improve their industry. That’s what we’re doing in this budget, that’s the purpose of the marine fisheries commission. I would ask that you oppose this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion or debate? If not the motion before the house is the adoption of the Speciale amendment. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 46 having voted in the affirmative and 68 in the negative the amendment fails. For what purpose does Representative Torbett rise? Representative Torbett what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker, debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to sent for an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Torbett moves to amend the bill on page 238 line 17 through page 239 line 2 by deleting those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Torbett you’re recognized to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This was simply something we added into the transportation budget to do an over the interim look at. It appears that they’re not ready to have that information. It will be continued so we’re just striking that out of the language of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does William Brawley of Mecklenburg rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] You’re recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. There was some concern that was raised in a few peoples’ minds, mine was one of them, complained about it. I wanted to thank Representative Torbett for the gracious way he listened to us and agreed to defer this to a later date, it was part of an excellent bill produced by his committee for transportation and I wholeheartedly support the adoption for the amendment and once again want to thank Representative Torbett for the honorable way he dealt with me on this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion or debate? If not the motion before the house is the adoption of the Torbett amendment. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 114 having vote in the affirmative and none in the negative the amendment is adopted. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] What purpose does Representative Fisher of Bumcombe rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I was in the chamber and would like to be recorded as voting aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Absolutely, yes mam. For what purpose does Representative Jackson of Wake arise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Send for an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Jackson you are recognized to send forth your amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] This is amendment AMC-97b1, Representative Jackson moves to amend the bill on page 154 lines 8-21 by deleting those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I’m looking, I don’t think Representative ??? has his lights on so I’ll give you a short spiel on what this amendment does. This is the other part of the policy that I think is in the budget. For those of you who don’t know what this provision does it sweeps out all our deputy commissioners and industrial commission over the next eighteen months. First we’re taking the SBA rights and then we’re sweeping them out. I think it’s just bad policy to fire 15 or so people and I’d ask your support on the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion or debate? For what purpose does Representative Murry of Wake rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] You are recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members I would ask that you would oppose the amendment and let me tell you why. The senate actually swept the board and instituted four year terms. The house version..

Wants to expand that to be 8 year terms. So that's what we're really talking about here is whether you think it's better to have, 1. Do you think they should have terms or not? The only way to go to a term for these deputy commissioners is to sweep the board. I don't know how you get there without doing that. These are quasi-judicial officers. There's no appointment process, there's no election. The full commissioners are completely opposite. They have basically the same rule, so we're trying to institute a level of accountability through an appointment process with terms and the only way to get there is to sweep the board. And it's not an overnight sweep at all, it's staggered. I would ask that you oppose this amendment to help us have a fair and balanced industrial commission with a term that's long enough to transcend politics of 8 years will get you through a Governor. And so if we ever re-elect a Governor but this will help keep politics out of the industrial commission and have a good long term and the only way to get there is to have a good long board and so I ask that you oppose the amendment. [Speaker Change] For the discussion or debate on the Jackson amendment. Hearing on the question for the house is the adoption of the amendment sent forward by Representative Jackson. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the machine for the vote. Clerk will lock the machine to record the vote. 67 have voted in the neg. The amendment fails. For what purpose does representative Stan Mervake [sp] arise? [Speaker Change] [inaudible] [Speaker Change] Oh yes, [inaudible] amendment. The gentlemen has recognized to send forth an amendment the clerk will read. [Speaker Change] Representative Stan [sp] moves to amend the bill on page 37 lines 2 through 3 by inserting between those lines a new subsection to read. [Speaker Change] Mister Speaker and members of the house this is a semi technical clarified amendment to opportunity scholarships. As stated int he law now they have to conduct criminal background checks like charter schools do but it doesn't actually say they have to turn that over to the state education assistance authority. So the authority would like the authority to actually collect copies of those background checks. [Speaker Change] For what purpose does Representative Glasier [sp] of Cumberland arise? [Speaker Change] To speak to the amendment Mister Speaker. [Speaker Change] You are recognized to speak on the amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you very much Mister Speaker. I think this is an appropriate fix to Representative Stans [sp] unconstitutional bill but because this is a good fix to the bad bill I would urge adoption. [Speaker Change] For discussion or debate, hearing on the question of the house is the amendment sent forth by Representative Stan [sp]. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [pause]. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 115 have voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. The amendment is adopted. For what purpose does Representative Faircloth [sp] arise? [Speaker Change] To send forth an amendment. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. [Speaker Change] Representative Faircloth moves to amend the bill on page 188, line 23, by rewriting the line to read. [Speaker Change] Now the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mister Speaker. This is an addition to a line in section 00071000 on page 188 that simply protects doing a transition period of the beaurea of investigation protects the funding, or the budget, and the folks that are assigned to that bueareau. This adds in addition to the budget and the personnel. This adds funds that are in the budget code 23606 which is seized and forfeited assets.

These are the assets that the bureau see as received as a result of criminal arrest. They can be expanded at the pleasure of the bureau with the bureau is required to notify the General Assembly. This whole, those funds in the bureau during the transition period and I ask you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Hearing none, the question before the house is the adoption of the amendment send forth by Representative Faircloth. All in favor, vote Aye. All oppose, vote No. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 107 having voted in the affirmative and 8 in negative, the amendment is adopted. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think, to send forth an amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth his amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier moves to amend the bill on page 56 lines 28 and 29 by inserting the following sub-sections between those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and I apologize to the Chair, the Co-chairs. I haven’t had a chance to get this to them, but I will explain it and if there is any concern, I’ll be glad to temporarily displace it. In the changes that have been made yesterday to the budget that create for prospective teachers. Those who are going to be getting 1 year contracts and then 1, 2 and 4 year contracts. Those who’d have been hired from now on. We have eliminated because there has been a lot of change in the statutes. We eliminated a lot of their rights. What the existing law would provide is that for anybody who’s non-renewed and they have a right to at least grieve to their school board, there is no formal process that is they’re not entitled to counsel, they’re not entitled to examination of witnesses, they’re not entitled to appeal. But you do have a right to at least explain to the boards. The board knows if they’re contesting their termination and then the board can simply vote to uphold the superintendence termination. Under the changes we’ve made, we haven’t given that right that exists now and in there at all. So, right now, I want a teacher under the new statute we’re putting in place is non-renewed when their 1 or 2 or 4 year contract expires. They have no right to grieve to anybody. I don’t think that’s what was intended. We don’t wanna put in, and I assume that nobody wants to put in a full due process hearing. But they ought to have the right to at least be able to be heard when they’re being fired and that may be a five minute discussion but they ought have the right to put on the record what their concern is and let the board say Aye or Nay. Again, this doesn’t create any due process rights at all of how that hearing should be held, doesn’t make it formal, doesn’t make it recorded, doesn’t do anything except to say what they’ve always had the process to do. Let me at least tell you why I think I shouldn’t be fired. It seems to me a pretty basic concern and pretty limited and we ought to do that. And again, it creates absolutely no right to appeal, no right of a due process, formal hearing, no right of a counsel, no right of evidence, no right of anything except to be allowed to be heard and I would hope we would give them that right. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Adams rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Glazier a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield, yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Glazier. Thank you for your comments but do you not think they deserve due process, even teachers coming in? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I do but I’m trying to find at least a bare minimum ground to stay with what the process is now that they would have a right and I think we ought to, in a subsequent amendment, talk about expanding that. But, for me, I’m trying to at least give them a base opportunity to be heard which is what it is now and I don’t wanna try to expand it given the circumstances we’re under but I agree with you in every way but that’s not what I’m doing with this amendment. I’m trying to do step 1 and we’re talking steps 2 and 3. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you gonna take us to steps 2 and 3? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, if I can find a way to do that, I would but I think probably there’s no way.

Do that on the floor today. No way to craft that kind of proposal this fast and I think that’s something that ought to be legitimately looked at, that will bring in all of the education groups into the Ed committee for actual real policy discussion on that and the real drafting of it. I would agree with you and I would support it and I would primarily sponsor it but I just don’t think we can do that on the floor today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Elmore of Wilkes rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Currently the teachers that are entering the profession are on yearly contracts. They do not obtain tenure until year four, granted by the local entity. So, anybody that is currently in this situation knows upfront that all they are guaranteed is a year contract. That’s the current system right now and we’re not dealing with tenure legislation in our house budget. So, any teacher that is tenured right now will still have all of these. What he’s trying to do is extend that down to new hires which already know that it’s only going to be a year contract. That’s already the policy. So, I would urge you not to support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative McGrady of Henderson rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Elmore stated one of my concerns. This is a matter that we have taken up before. We have set in place, a process whereby a teacher can petition for a hearing but we don’t require the local board to grant such a hearing. I think, I agree with Representative Glazier that this is a discussion that we need to have about what the process ought to be but we ought not to have it in the middle of the budget document in the short session and so I’ll personally make a commitment to have that discussion but I do urge the members to vote against the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Brian of Mecklenburg rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the amendment sponsor a question [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Glazier, I just wanted if there have been any conversation about the burden this might put on local boards from an automatic appeal right to them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, the answer is yes and no. That is not in detail because, obviously we’ve had a day and a half to be having those conversations and that makes it awfully difficult given what’s occurred. Secondly, what I can speak to is, and those who are former board members I think can speak too, the vast majority of times when you have terminations, although that may increase with the new system; they’re worked out. You do the resignation and everybody has these informal discussions and for all kinds of reasons, the teacher ends up resigning and we all know how that works. In the few cases where it doesn’t, then obviously they have a right to be heard and that’s the end of it. This doesn’t create any process beyond that but since we’re now putting this new system in place, it goes into effect now and that’s the problem. Representative McGrady may be right and I’m not trying to write the whole system into this but we are in this budget saying for all the teachers hired after the budget goes into effect, they are under this. It’s not like we have time to write a whole new system because you all are putting a new system into this. And so, at a minimum all this says, all this does is say that the teacher has a right to be heard, it may be for 5 minutes, it may be, that’s all the board has to do but they at least ought to have to hear the teacher who says I’m being wrongfully fired. They don’t have to grant her counsel, they don’t have to give her evidence, they don’t have to do any of that but for the life of me I can’t understand why we wouldn’t let the teacher have her 5 minutes before board as the one sort of ?? process and if there’s a problem, we can come back next year and fix it but this is going into effect now and I think teachers at least given everything that’s happened to them, deserve for us to say “Alright, we’ll at least give you this amount and then we’ll figure it out and any more detail one way or another next session”. This is going into effect now, we don’t get to wait till next session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Lucas of Cumberland rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, I support the amendment, I think.

In this era of teacher shortages. And as we are attempting to recruit more professionalism in our teaching arena that it’s just common courtesy that we, in turn, be professional in our deportment and relationship to the teachers. It’s just a matter of giving a hearing to them. I think we owe them at least that. I don’t know what harm comes to being courteous to professional employees. And to me it’s just a measure of common courtesy, decency if you would, to give them a hearing. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Speciale of Craven arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I”m just trying to ascertain from the bill sponsor, are we talking about firings or are we talking about contract renewals? Because a contract renewal, when you decide not to renew a contract, that is not firing somebody. That’s simply not renewing a contract. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, do you yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, Mister Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you and thank you for the question. Under the new process going forward, they are granted one year and then one, two, and four year contracts possibilities. Then there is non-renewal of those contracts under which, currently when you are a teacher and you a non-renewed before you had career status, you got notified. Some districts then created processes how to deal with it, some did not. But at a minimum, most districts, I think I would say, at least allow the teacher to be heard and then they went ahead and did what they were going to do. Again, most of these are worked out, there’s a reason why they’re being non-renewed. But for those where there is a real contest, where there’s been a personality issue, or there’s things that probably ought to be heard, and we having nothing in this new system that allows them to really do that. And we can fix this. There’s going to be very little non-renewal between now and the long session. So all this is saying to teachers is, we get it, we know we have to do something. For the one or two cases that may come up between now and when we come back in long session, you’ll at least have the right to be heard. And then we can meet and put whatever process, full or little, needs to be in place. But right now we got zero. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. But would you acknowledge that a not renewing a contract is not necessarily a firing? Because the contract says one year or two years and that’s all you should expect until if and when it comes time for you to renew. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I certainly agree that a non-renewal is not a firing. It is often in places a precursor substitute for, “we’re going to do this, and we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Meyer of Orange arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The creation of due process rights for teachers was established in the late nineteenth, early twentieth century because there was often in school districts the creation of arbitrary rules introduced at the school level that would be used to fire a teacher who was not actually in violation of any law. That has become something more extensive over time obviously. But if we think about law that has been passed by this legislature, this session, we passed a bill that would allow a teacher to join with a student led prayer. If a school wishing to set a different set of polices within in their school said, “Our rule in the school to avoid any issues with student led prayer in our school is that teachers need to leave the classroom whenever a student led prayer is introduced.” And then a teacher said, “No, I have the legal right to stay in the classroom and join with those students.” If the school decided to dismiss that teacher, without any due process rights, that teacher would be dismissed from the school having not actually broken the law that we would have put in place to protect them. This amendment does not go so far as to reinstate all due process rights that we’ve taken away from teachers, but it does give back to a teacher the right to sit down for a five minutes with an administrator in the school district or an appointee of the board and say, “I do believe I was acting within my legal rights to stay in the classroom. I should have been allowed to do so.” And that gives them the opportunity to raise the right to the higher point of power and speak up on their behalf. I support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Iler of Brunswick arise?

See if President Glazier, would you answer that question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And President Glazier, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] President Glazier, I think you know me well enough, I’m truly trying to understand the wording in your amendment, here. I keep reading the word, non renewal but, I keep hearing debate on the word firing and dismissal, and I’m wondering, can you envision a situation, probably not in my county, maybe not in yours, where in Wake County, if there are 4 or 500 non renewed teachers in any given year, that all these teacher could request a hearing before the school board, how that would be a complication to the school board? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I think, we can envision a scenario in the most outlandish of circumstances but, that’s never, that’s not gonna happen, that’s not the nature of how these things come up. Most teachers who are non renewed are in their first, second and third years now, because now we are extending it past that. There’s a pretty good basis, everyone knows, there’s not a contest over it, the teacher’s given some notice, but in the rare cases, and it was rare, and probably in the 6 years I served on the school board, we probably had three calls to be heard. They were, in two of those three cases, pretty legitimate. What is happening, it’s not a firing, [??] absolutely right. It’s not a pure dismissal, but what’s happening is, what Representative Meyer said could be, the reason I’m not renewing is because you disobeyed my order about getting out of the classroom when the prayer was going on. Under our changes we’ve made, there’s really no way for that teacher to be heard, unless they decide, at this point, nothing really allows that to happen. All I’m trying to do is to fill in the gap until January, to allow a teacher the right, and I think it’s gonna be rare, to allow that teacher the right to be heard. Again, it can be limited to five minutes, but at least the issue, she’s at least had a chance to tell the board what the problem was. They may say, don’t agree, on we go. I don’t think you’re gonna have any rush or glut of these cases, and as I suggested, because we’re gonna be back in January, we ought to then take time to fix it and figure out, listen to the school boards, and figure out a process, whatever that process is gonna be. In the meantime, there ought to be something, and they ought to know, given everything that’s happening, that at least we understand they have the right to be heard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [??] to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully, disagree, maybe not in the numbers that may come forward, but in the possibility of turning the school board meeting into a political platform and other things that can go on if they are forced to give them a hearing. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does Representative Elmore of Wilkes arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I speak a second time to the amendment, and I’ll do this quickly, I don’t want to get too far into the weeds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You’re getting painted a perception that a teacher could just automatically be dismissed with the principal walking through the door, and saying, get out of the building. A new hire that comes in knows that they have a year contract. In that year contract, they have to be evaluated four times on our new evaluation system, which has over 36 checkpoints where the principal has direct communication with the teacher, speaking with them, where the teacher can make a formal response back to the principal on their comments, and even attaching documentation. That’s guaranteed, and the principal has the option to do additional observations if they choose to. So, you’re being painted a picture that it’s an environment where there’s no communication between the employee and the principal, and that the administration is going to go after teachers. It is set up in part of their duties to create that line of communication between the employee and the principal by regulations, so that the protections are in place. So, this environment where a teacher is never communicated with, is automatically fired when they come through the door is a very inaccurate portrayal. They even admitted, they used the term extreme, and rare. It’s not set up that way. This is not the time or place with this amendment to be dealing with this. I would urge you not to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose is Representative Brandon of Guilford arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment just briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may now speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I listened to debate, I was a little bit nervous about the amendment because, Representative Elmore makes very good points, we don’t wanna look at things, and just make things a political platform at the school board, and things like that, but this amendment, basically just gives basic due process that pretty much, every single business across this state, anybody that does business with anyone

[Speaker Changes] You want your employees to have some type of due process and whether you are a contract employee or a non contract employee, I think everybody deserves some type of recourse to be able to say something and it will be extreme and it will be rare just as representative Elmore [sp] said, these cases portrayal of some of the rhetoric is not true. I don't think it's the rhetoric that believe that in extreme rare cases there are personality conflicts, there are situations that we have where we would actually need this in place and I think that my gentleman that spoke earlier, Representative Ilend [sp], he spoke very very clear about that, about one of the extreme cases that could happen whenever you talk about a teacher that wants to pray with their kids. These are all extreme rare occasions but that is the whole reason why we come here every year. We have to make laws. I made laws when I first got here on how many chickens you can carry because someone evidently carried too many chickens. So, we do this. This is why we make law and even if it's rare and even if it's extreme, that person needs protection also so I urge you to support the amendment. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does Representative Collins of Nash [sp] arise? [Speaker Changes] To ask Representative Glasier [sp] a question. [Speaker Changes] Representative Glasier [sp], do you yield? [Speaker Changes] Yes sir. [Speaker Changes] Representative Glasier [sp], and again I don't understand this completely so I want ot make sure I get an understanding of it. You keep talking about this new system, the old system, new system, old system. I was kind of under the impression that the first 3 years a teacher was hired, they were kind of hired at the pleasure of their employer and then after they reached tenure status there was a difference. And unless i'm reading this wrong, we're looking here at line 5 where you're starting to make the change. The right to petition for hearing? It looks like the current situation is they have a right to apply for a hearing but they don't necessarily have to receive it. Is that correct or not? [Speaker Changes] There's multi parts to your question, Representative Collins. Remember we do have or if this budget passes if the senate concurs, we end up with these provisions. We've now created a 2 tier system. We're correctly I think obeying the court order so anybody who is currently a teacher would be under the old system with career status in place. Very different statutes. Anyone who is hired prospectively will be under the new system. What you're looking at are some statutory changes that were put in place last year to put in place the new system that only now applies to prospective teachers. So that is why there is a double issue going on. This is only applying to the prospective teachers. The former teachers have their own set of system and rules in place as career status. Secondly, under the former system your first couple years are probationary years and you can be non-renewed under each of those years until you reach career status and then different reasons. Cause comes into play. The new system offers 1, 2 and 4 year contracts based on a number of principles but in some regards a subjective discretion of the principle and the superintendent on the board. So you're putting teachers in a very different position not only from the get go but for those teachers who are 1, 2 and 4 year contracts. Not just the first 3 probationary years. We have a very different system going. We haven't I would say because of the time and the rush and the changes that have occurred, there hasn't been a whole lot of perfection of this system. And all i'm trying to do is fill in a gap until we can really look at this issue, as Representative McGrady [sp] is correct. We need to in January. In the meantime, a teacher who is in the rare case, and I think that's what we are talking about, ought to at least have the right to be heard as a matter of law and then the board can do what it's going to do . [Speaker Changes] Follow up. [Speaker Changes] But we are then saying, I am correct I believe in understanding that this amendment is asking for a new guaranteed right for teachers at least in their first 3 years that they had not had previously. Is that correct? [Speaker Changes] I think it's asking for them to have a right to be heard, which is generally what occurs in many districts but it is changing that aspect. But again we're in a very different system. It's not the 3 year probationary as you understand. It creates far more uncertainty for everybody in that new system right from the get go and that I think is a concern i'm trying to allay a little bit with this until we can figure out how better to do that in January.

The gentleman is recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think it’s clear we are indeed creating a new right for at least teachers in their first three years. Now if we want to go back and do something later to deal with people who’ve had four-year contracts and now in their fifth year, I certainly would be willing to listen to that, but I think it’s pretty clear here folks, we are establishing a new right to hearing for teachers in the first three years that we never did so far when either side was in charge, so I would say until we can work on this a little more, I would hope that you would vote against this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the House is the amendment sent forth by Representative Glazier. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. Clerk will open the machine. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 51 in the affirmative and 63 in the negative, the amendment fails. For what purpose does Representative Lambeth rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is Amendment ALU-34. Representative Lambeth moves to amend the bill on page 77, lines 2 and 3, by inserting the following between those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment adds language under the section on competitive grants to include programs related to smoking prevention and cessation that screens and treats tobacco use in pregnant and postpartum mothers. I’m not aware of any opposition to this amendment. I recommend it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the House is the adoption of the amendment send forth by Representative Lambeth. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. It’s hard for me to slow down but I will. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative, the amendment is adopted. Representative Lambeth, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is Amendment AMG-61. Representative Lambeth moves to amend the bill on page 88, line 34 by inserting a new subdivision under the line to read… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lambeth, you’re recognized to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a technical correction that was requested by the staff. It adds language to direct the Clerk of Court to make status reports submitted by corporations or disinterested public agents available to the director of the Division of Aging. The director must review the status reports in connection of the department’s regular program of oversight. I’m also not aware of any opposition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the House is the adoption of the amendment send forth by Representative Lambeth. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 114 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the amendment is adopted. For what purpose does Representative Goodman rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman moves to amend the bill on page 2, line 36 by decreasing the amount on line 36 by 10…

?? and further. Representative Goodman is recognized to explain his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES’] Thank you, Mister Speaker. This amendment simply renews ten million dollars that was appropriated for the Opportunities Scholarship Act or vouchers and returns it to DPI for to modify classroom teacher allocations in grade two and three. If I could debate the amendment I would just like to say that we’ve heard all the arguments, for and against the voucher program but my argument, the reason I want it removed is that it violates constitution of the state that says, “Public education funds will be used only for public schools.” And the courts have weighed in on this, and until those constitutional questions are answered, I think we should not be spending state money here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Stam of Wake arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Part of my amendment could be a point of order but I rather have a vote on it. He takes that ten million and then spends it somewhere else. But unfortunately for Representative Goodman the fiscal memorandum shows that that ten million saves us 11.6 million. So rather than spend it somewhere else, he really needs to find something else to cut. Others will speak to the merits of it. I just wanted to point that out so you realize what you’re actually doing here is loosing money. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Bryan of Mecklenburg arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I answer Representative Stam’s point please, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you not speak a second time and this will be your last. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To answer to his point, we discuss this with staff and staff says that’s not so. They say it’s a ten for ten swap. So staff disagrees. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Bryan of Mecklenburg arise again? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Speaker. First I would say, that only in this county, due to the technical amendment we’ve made, is that actually correct. It would be a two million dollar savings, I believe, in the next fiscal year. Which means there’s a two million dollar cut it would have to make based on the savings. I’m not going to go through all the long conversations we’ve had before. How we’ve talked a lot and debated this issue a lot. Let me just clarify though, this is a scholarship for low income kids that do not have good options. We have had over five thousand families apply in a very brief window of time. And this scholarship will unfortunately only allow about half of those families the opportunity they need. But I urge you to let them have that opportunity and to vote down this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Brandon of Guilford arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to ask the colleagues if we would please vote down this amendment. As a sponsor of this bill, I would like for you to know that Representative Goodman said that there were some constitutional issues. I would remind you of our constitutional responsibility, which is to make sure that we provide a quality education for every single child in this state. And we have numbers and we have data that shows for thirty-five, forty years that there are particular segments of our population that have not been receiving a quality education. And that it’s not because we have bad teachers, and it’s not because we have bad principals, it’s because we have a bad system. And we’re trying to fix that. And a lot of my colleagues would like to engage into a fantasy conversation. And that fantasy being, as long as we continue to invest into public education, everything will be fine. Well, we’ve been having that conversation for the better part of fifty years, and the only people that suffer from it is the people that live in my community. And so if you’re going to really do your constitutional duty, you will understand that the constitution provides you the right to make sure that you provide a quality education for every child. It’s interesting to me that we have decided that this particular bill is unconstitutional, when Representative Goodman and others who are against this bill voted for the special needs scholarship. which is exactly the same exact bill.

And I will tell you that my children may not roll up in school with an IEP and they might not come to school with a wheelchair but the needs are indeed special and we owe it in this body to make sure that we provide that same opportunity that we did with children with special needs. The same thing that we do for children in pre-K and ???, that folks is a voucher program. That’s a voucher program, people could take money from the state and they can go to whatever preschool and whatever daycare they want to go to and it doesn’t matter if it’s religious or it’s not. I will be very careful about saying this is unconstitutional because we do it in every facet of education except in K-12. We do it in higher education, we do it in pre-K, we do it everywhere, but somehow we’re manipulated to think that because somehow we want to give kids in my community the same opportunity that we give special needs, the same opportunity with give preschoolers, and the same opportunities we give higher ed kids that somehow it is unconstitutional. I will let you know there is nothing unconstitutional about giving poor and minority children the same exact opportunity as every other children. Nothing unconstitutional about it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. For what purpose does Representative Glazier of Cumberland arise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the amendment Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. Today we confront a frighteningly bizarre question. Does article 9, section 6 allow what its text plainly prohibits? Needless to say, except that this budget obliges us to say it, the question answers itself. I think a little constitutional history might be in order for a constitutional decision that doesn’t relate at all to preschools or colleges because of course those who have read the constitution know the provisions don’t apply to them, they apply only to K-12. That being said, it ought to be that we think about this. This is not the policy debate, we’ve had that, we agree or disagree on whether vouchers will solve it. But we now have a court decision stayed only because of a writ of supersedeas that has nothing to do with the merits, in fact if you read what a writ of supersedeas is it’s simply to stay the decision so there can be a more legitimate discussion at the court on the merits before the decision is made and in fact the trial will be had on the merits and I suspect the trial courts injunction will eventually be upheld on the merits, but we at least ought to know the argument because that’s what at issue here so I’m going to make it and I’m going to ask for your consideration on the merits of the legal issue, not the policy of vouchers. Others can make that back and forth and we’ve done it in this chamber quite a bit. Article 1 section 15 of the constitution of North Carolina states the people have a right to privilege of education and it is the duty of the state to guard and maintain it. The meaning of that is specified in article 9. Here’s the language of article 9, section 2: he general assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools and article 9, section 6 then sets forth exactly how the state is to do that and at the end of that article it says as to the money that can be used and together with so much of the revenue of the state as may be set apart for that purpose shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for establishing and maintaining a uniform system of free public schools. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does Representative Hastings rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To see if Representative Glazier would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Glazier would you yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do not yield at this time Representative Hastings but I’ll be delighted to when I finish. [SPEAKER CHANGE] He does not yield at this time. Continue Representative Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The 1868 constitution committed to the state providing education through a general and uniform system of public schools. At that time article 9 section 4 obliged us to fund public schools quote to an irreducible education fund which shall be faithfully appropriated for establishing and perfecting in the state a system of free public schools. In 1875 section 4 was amended so that state revenues could be expended quote for the purposes of education quote..

… faithfully appropriated for establishing a state system of free and public schools. Well we all know the history of what happened in our state and in much of our country between the later 1800s and 1955, and in 1955, the North Carolina General Assembly appointed, as a result of Brown vs Board of Education, the Pearsall Commission, which in order avoid to some extent school integration recommended this General Assembly enact a voucher program that provided taxpayer-funded grants for use in public schools for kids who were otherwise assigned to an integrated public school. The General Assembly enacted that Pearsall Plan in 1956 and amended the Constitution, or allowed to be authorized under new section 12 that notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution, the General Assembly can provide for those vouchers, very specifically. A decade later, in litigation and federal court, the Pearsall Plan and article 9, section 12 were struck down. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Szoka rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I thought we were debating the amount that was being appropriated, not the policy, and I don’t see how Representative Glazier’s explanation right now relates to the appropriation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order taken. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It directly relates to it because what Representative Goodman is doing is saying the ten million is being unconstitutionally appropriated and needs to be put to a constitutionally appropriate space. I think that in a few minutes, my argument will end and people will be able to vote, but we ought to be able to make the reason for Representative Goodman’s amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the Pearsall Plan was struck down by the federal courts. As a result of that, and this is the key, in 1968, the State Constitution was amended. Article 12 that allowed for the vouchers was removed, section 12 was replaced, section 4 and section 6 were changed, and the wording we now have came into play, which is unlike almost any other state constitution in the country, and it says that the money we expend here for public education, for education of the public, has to be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for establishing and maintaining a uniform system of free public schools. Whatever else we can say, it is only a tortured reading of the Constitution that could suggest that money that goes to families to allow them to make choices to send their children to private school with the taxpayer-funded voucher is money used exclusively for the establishment of public schools. It is precisely this point that the trial judge enjoined us on, and yet here we are today attempting to go for yet another constitutional issue with it. There is lots of discussion we can have about the policy, and it is up to the public though. We have sometimes forget that the Constitution takes some issues away from us. That’s the purpose of it, to remove certain issues from public debate. It may be the public wants vouchers, it may be they don’t, but because we have this constitutional provision, if you want as the majority to have vouchers in this state, there is only one way to do it, and I would vote for you to do this. Put an amendment on the ballet that asks the state to revise the Constitution, take out the word “exclusively”. You do that, you get the public to vote for it, then we can put in place a voucher policy by statute or otherwise. You leave that word in as it is, the public has taken this issue from us, and this is the public’s Constitution, not ours, and there are some things that they have removed from the policy debate, and this is it, and Representative Goodman is exactly right. This is not a policy discussion; this is a constitutional law discussion, and eventually the justices of the Supreme Court I think – and unfortunately you are doing a dis-justice to them because we have put this in their laps in a political year, and that is unfortunate, but I expect they will come up with the right answer when all is said and done because there is no other way to read the word “exclusively”. Now Representative Stam would argue because you’re putting 11.6 million dollars back in the budget that that’s going to undo the problem, recognizing the trial court might have been right and trying to create a way around it.

The problem is, you can't get through the back door when you're not allowed to get through the front door. The constitution doesn't say because you put extra money in the budget for public education, that other public funds can be used to fund non-exclusive public schools. That's not what the constitution says and it doesn't say what's in the public education fund. It says taxpayer funds must be used exclusively. There is no way to get around that. We can argue all we want about vouchers, but as we said on the floor last year and as the trial court is now affirmed and I believe will eventual be affirmed up the chain. We have put in place something that is unconstitutional. There's only one way to get the policy you want and it's to do it the right way, amend the constitution, then create your voucher program, but for now Representative Goodman is exactly correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Stam of Wake rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Your recognized to speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I ask you to vote no. In the lawsuit I filed a 46 page affidavit, but I'm not going to go over it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thankfully. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll email it to you. Representative Glazier filed a long affidavit and he's just wrong on this. Let me tell you why he's wrong. If you have you're constitution, because I want you to feel good about the fact that you're following the constitution when you are. But if you're in Article 9, first of all there's a provision, religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools shall forever be encouraged. So we've got to have these public schools to help, to do religion and morality. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] School attendance. I'll yield later. That every child shall attend the public schools unless educated by other means. So from the beginning, we've recognized private education. Now we go to the state school fund, to which Representative Glazier sites, but he's completely wrong on the source of the money involved. If you have your money report today, the blue thing. This is under the UNC system, not, but you won't see it here, it was in last years money report, but it's not under the public schools at all. It's under the UNC system and allocated to the State Education Assistance Authority, which is the same one that disperses money to Merideth, and Duke, and 35 other private colleges. So the whole, in other words, when he looks at the constitution, Article 9, Section 6, it says the last 4 lines if you're in this little book, together with so much of the revenue of the state as may be set apart for that purpose. This 10 million was never set apart for that purpose of the K-12. It never entered that system whatever, whenever, ever. The entire predicate of their constitutional lawsuit is based upon a misunderstanding by some of our budget process. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does Representative Warren of Rowan rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Stam would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatvie Stam, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, when I was working on the Voter ID Bill, I ran across a lot of things in the constitution that we don't adhere to like the literacy act or requirement in Section 6 of the statement in Section 8 of Article 6 that you're ineligible to run for office if you don't profess a belief in god, but looking at Article 9 in Section 2 the constitution states the General Assembly shall provide that every child of appropriate age and sufficient mental and physical ability shall attend the public schools unless educated by other means. Now since you have identified a different source of the funding, wouldn't this other means opportunity, scholarships, qualify as the other means that we're referring to in the constitution? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Exactly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Horn, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the Bill, or Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, thank goodness I'm not a constitutional scholar or a legal scholar or an attorney or anything else like that. Thank goodness, I am a grandpa and a father and I want a good education for my kids. And I suspect everyone in here wants a good education for their children and grandchildren. I think everyone in here agrees that not everything works for everybody. I think everyone in here agrees that not every child learns the same thing at the same rate or in the same way. It just doesn't happen. So this General Assembly took that challenge 2 years ago to address that issue. That

Not everything works for everyone. We came up with a solution that allowed folks that didn’t have the means that unlucky enough to have. If my kids aren’t getting a good education or my grandchildren aren’t getting a good education someplace, I’m fortunate enough I have the means to send them someplace else, but there’s a lot of really hard working people in this state that don’t have those means. I’m not going to really carry this on to any length of time. We don’t have I think the patience, we’ve already debated the sense of the issue, but we made a decision two years ago. We committed ourselves to a system and now we’re funding the system in the budget as we had committed. I am not a constitutional lawyer thank God, I am a grandpa, and I want my kids to get a good education and I want kids from poor families across this state to have an opportunity for their kids to get a good education. Please vote down this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hastings please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To see if Representative Glazier would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Glazier does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Certainly Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Glazier I was going to see if you could clarify a constitutional issue for me, and the staff tells me that state appropriated dollars to private colleges and universities dates back all the way to the 1970s and that would be tax payers dollars going to a private college. Did you support those? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] And I’ll finish my answer to you. I do, except of course the constitutional provision. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Does the gentleman wish to debate the amendment a second time? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I wish to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker, and Representative Hastings it’s a good question, raised in part as well by Representative Brandon in his discussion, except of course the constitutional provision that we’re interpreting has nothing to do with colleges and universities, it relates to K-12 and so the provisions as to what we do and give to colleges and universities are not covered by article 9, section 6. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hastings please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To see if Representative Glazier would yield for a second question? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Glazier does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Glazier, my copy of the state constitution says a uniform system of free public schools, it doesn’t say K-12, would that be correct? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hastings if you read the history of that constitutional provision it’s clear that the free system of public schools that it’s referring to is K-12, it’s not referring to colleges and universities that have their own independent constitutional provision. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Brandon please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak a second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hastings to your other point of this before I speak on that, I would say that our tax credit, the same exact bill for special needs is definitely within the provision of K-12 and Representative Glazier also voted for that measure also so this is the crux of my statement and I’m leaving so I can make these statements because I know it’s hard for some people to hear but I want people to know that when I came here I noticed some things. The whole reason why I ran for office, and I felt that I needed to come because I felt that people in my community get marginalized a lot and the whole reason why this is important and why we have to be here and talk about his is because folks, it doesn’t matter what anybody says, you can make any argument you want, you can talk about it the way you want to talk about it, but we have hard data, hard specific data, but more importantly than that I have human lives that are affected by this. You can concentrate on a problem for forty years and it doesn’t get better, it is an impossibility and that’s exactly what has happened. We continue to come down here year after year, we make the campaign promises, we do all of that, but there is one population for forty straight years or more that has continued to have the same exact numbers but nobody got up during the special needs and talked about these constitutional issues and nobody got up and spoke about it that way and nobody for years talks about any other thing other than what’s going on in my community, but anytime there’s something for poor or minority kids, whether you’re a democrat or a republican, in the history of this chamber we ??? now we have a problem. We didn’t have a problem for it for the other children but you have a problem..

Come within from markets and I think that’s a problem. I think it’s a huge problem and I would say to my caucus and to the folks in this general assembly, I won’t be back but please stop marginalizing my children for political redirect. If you were serious about it, it wouldn’t have the same number for 50 years. It’s not possible, it’s just not possible. So you folks, if they’re gonna stay here, there gonna be people to get up and continue to say the same exact redirect that they have said for 35-40 years and I want you to look deep into yourself as it is that represents my constituency. Folks, I’m here to tell you I’m very proud I do not miss a beat sleeping at night knowing the fact that I’m gonna have Miss Jones who does not have a choice. Because she lives in a zip code and she’s poor, will now get a different choice. I sleep very well because of that. I hope you sleep very well by voting down this amendment and continuing that policy. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hanes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good Afternoon, Colleagues. The last time I stood to speak with regard to this opportunity scholarship program or the voucher program, I stood to ask that the program be pulled out of the budget. I did that. It was the right thing to do. It was an appropriate thing to do and I stand by that. Today, I stand to oppose this amendment and to explain to you a little bit about why I want to do that. My colleague, several minutes ago, as he often does, spoke quite eloquently in terms of his constitutional analysis and I wanted to touch base on that just a little bit. When we started with Article 9, section 2, the uniform system of schools, I won’t go so far as to say that my good friend, Representative Glazier was wrong, would never do that. But, what I will say is that a little misdirection going on and we conveniently stepped over a little bit of language here. So let me start, I wanna read that in full. General and uniform system term. The General Assembly shall provide by taxation otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools which shall be maintained at least 9 months in every year and wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students. That is the key language – where equal opportunity shall be provided for poor students. Then we moved on and move to section 6 and I was surprised we took a quite a strict constructionist approach to that language. In section 6, where when we spoke the words ‘and shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for establishing a uniform system of free public schools’. I take umbrage at the word free, when we start talking about public schools in the communities that some of us represent. I don’t know if students who are forced to go to school that are 99% free and reduced lunch. I don’t know how free that is. I think those students are being taxed in ways that are unimaginable. Let me read a couple of numbers for you here. These are the end of grade, 3rd grade proficiency scores for some of our counties. Alamance – 26% proficient for economically disadvantaged students. Alexander – 41%, Aleghany – 44%, Anson – 29%, Ashe – 36%, Bladen – 24%, Burke – 38%, Caldwell – 36%, Cherokee – 37%, Cleveland – 38%, Columbus – 19%, Craven – 30%, Davie – 36% and my home country of Forsyth – 23%. 23% in Forsyth County. Economically disadvantaged students. In Forsyth County, there are few different schools that I represent.

One of the ?? school that my daughter attends, they’re in the third grade reading proficiency. 86% public schools. It’s the neighborhood I live in. Here are a couple of scores for schools that are less than 1.5 miles from where I live and these are the scores of the schools that my father grew up in. 13.8 % - 99% free reduced lunch. 10% - 99% free reduced lunch. 13.7% - 99% free and reduced lunch. And 6% - 97% eligible for jail according to the department of corrections. There’s nothing free about that when 99% of those students look like me or look like anyone else who is poor and does not have the opportunity. I have a real problem today with people in this assembly, in my caucus, who will get ready 10 minutes from now to vote yes on this amendment and they have children in private school and will tell you that they are there because they cannot send their kids to an 80% free and reduced lunch school. Now why is that? Why is it good for us but not good for the rest of the State of North Carolina and we’re talking about poor children. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the kind of hypocrisy that the state of North Carolina and the citizens do not want. I understand this is a difficult issue. I understand we have our own folks that we have to answer to. I understand that the [NCAE] is upset. I understand that folks on both sides of the aisle have people they have to answer to but at the end of the day, we ought to be able to agree that we are gonna stand for poor children. If you can vote for a disability voucher bill then you can vote for this voucher bill. You can vote to vote down this amendment. Let’s have some consistency here. Everybody talks to me about how folks aren’t ready. You don’t wanna do this Rep. because people aren’t ready, people in your communities aren’t necessarily ready, the public schools aren’t ready. We’ve been talking about not being ready since the beginning of time. It is a constant argument that has happened. Back to the biblical ages, folks. Some folks weren’t ready when Moses went the ?? and he said “What? Let my people go”. 3500 families in this state are families who like me say, they want to go. Let them go. People weren’t ready. Everybody wasn’t ready when it came time to run. It didn’t mean Harry ?? had a bad idea. Everybody wasn’t ready when it came time to march across the bridge. It didn’t mean ?? dream wasn’t valid. Just because people weren’t ready to stand up it didn’t mean green ?? of want to sit in. This is what we’re talking about. We’re talking about opportunity. We don’t have to always agree but we’re made to be consistent. Ladies and Gentlemen, if we can vote on one thing, going forward we can come together on one thing, let’s please always do it when we’re talking about the needs of poor children. Thank you. Please don’t do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman, please take your seat. The question before the house is the passage of.

Sent forth by Representative Goodman for the House Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 744. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 43 have been voted affirmative. 71 in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative Murray is recognized 704 AME 60 amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No one knows what I'm talking about. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray knows to amend the bill in page 97, line 36 by inserting the following after the line. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bringing this issue before you on behalf of many of the patients that are on Medicaid and having difficult to get their prescription filled because of drug shortages, we have a preferred drug program here, in the state of Medicaid, and what in certain instances we actually require dispensing of a brand drug because of the rebate situation that we have. We're running into problems where we can't buy the brand name drugs not available in the market place, and so this directs department to analyze this issue and find savings from allowing pharmacists to help preserve patient's access to these drugs, especially in situations where misdosage may lead to negative and costly, patient outcomes and bypass a prior authorization process to be able to dismiss a generic drug until the preferred brand drug is available and not move a dot from the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before they ask is the passage of the amendment. Send forth by Representative Murray for the House Committee substitute of Senate bill 744. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 108 have voted affirmative, 9 in the negative. The amendment passes. Pages, could we please have you come to the front of the chamber? Pages, I actually promised Representative Brian that I would embarrass her daughter by recognizing her before we got out of her so if everybody recognize Representative Brian's daughter and thank you for your service. Pages, this is a great day. This is my favorite day. I know it's hard to believe. I'm sure most of the members don't believe it. This is my favorite day in the legislature on budget day. You got to see some of the debates today and this week, I hoped you learned a little from it. And I hope you had a very positive experiences and you'll share those experiences with your family and friends and encourage them to come back and serve this great body, and hopefully some of you will come back and serve this member. And, Cassidy, I have one of the members to tell me that that was the most beautiful rendition of the National Anthem he has ever heard. I tend to agree. We want to thank you for giving us that extra treat today. Pages, thank you very much for your service. Members, please show our gratitude. Thank you for your service, you are now dismiss. Have a great summer. Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, inquire with a cue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I sit through a long debate and I appreciate that and I appreciate you, the tendency of that, but I'm really concerned of how many more amendment do we have, number one, and number two, is can we take a vote on the time for tomorrow because some people may need some planning to schedule some changes. So whether we are still late tonight or early in the morning. I plea to the House that consideration be given. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative

Floyd, it’s the understanding of the Chair that the minority leader, Representative Larry Hall consulted with the caucus and that it was the desire of the minority caucus to meet on Friday [Morning] Night at Midnight as was offered. The Chair’s position is that the timing of this is going to something that would only be through consensus with the caucus leadership. So it’s probably more appropriate, we will be taking a recess here shortly so that we can have a brief rules meeting. At that time, if that something that your caucus would like to take up, the Chair will still entertain the option of midnight. With respect to time check, the Chair understands that we have some 20 or 21 amendments in possession of the clerk. We think there are some other ones being drafted. So, we have still several hours of amendments to take up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, how long, we have 20, how long do you project. I know you want to be fair and give everybody an opportunity. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair anticipates probably half of the amendments being relatively limited debate, maybe 5 minutes each. So, call that 45 minutes worth of debate. The other half, probably 30 minutes of debate each. So that’s about 3 hours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Before we start the 3.5 hour debate on the budget, Representative Speciale is recognized to send forth amendment AMH-78. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale moves to amend the bill on page 137 lines 5 through 22 by deleting those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. Basically, what we’re deleting is the section that would allow the fisheries director or his designee to enter into an agreement with national marine fishery service of the United States department of commerce. Allowing our marine fisheries inspectors to accept the delegation of law enforcement powers over matters within the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. In other words, I guess they wanna recruit our people, our marine fisheries with the promise of a dangling buck here, which is about 200,000 dollars and what my amendment does here, is it removes that. It removes that future entanglement with the Federal Government which has a very bad reputation. I have a report here, scathing audit of them and for many many reasons, constitutional reasons, sovereign reasons, we don’t need to get in yet another entanglement with the federal government for federal money. So, I ask you to please stand up for your state and do not allow us to get tied in with a federal agency once again. Thank You. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If members wishing to carry on discussions near the rear of the room, please go outside the chamber. I have members indicating that they cannot hear the debate who are seated in the rear of the chamber. Representative Murry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. The Senate budget expressly prohibits the entering into of joint enforcement agreements which is the subject of this amendment. The Senate expressly prohibits. The problem with that is that in the first year of the budget, we projected a 150,000 dollars’ worth of savings by entering into this. The second year of the budget, it’s 200,000 dollars’ worth of savings in the Marine Fisheries Commission. Representative Speciale acknowledges this as an amendment by taking 200,000 dollars out of the Clean Water Management Trust fund which has nothing to do with fishing, to pay for this savings associated with Joint enforcement agreements. This is and will be an [automatic] contention between the house and the senate. Let me tell you why joint enforcement agreements are a good idea. First, it reduces the number of officers that can step on foot of a boat. So, right now, you’ve got federal waters and state waters. Violation on the boat, where there’s commercial fishing boat mainly where it deals with. Get a state officer that can step on foot of that boat. That boat could ?? start going off, federal officer can get on the same issue, same boat and this help consolidate this. Last thing I’ll say is.

Only state that on any coast whether it is the pacific or the Atlantic doe s has a join enforcement agreement, this a way to leverage state and federal dollars and make it easier for our commercial fisherman it stopped over and over again by multiple different layers of officers and so it is as I said states asked if we still oppose the amendment , let North Caroline join every other coastal state and leveraging our state and federal dollars to make sure we have better enforcement and less reputation amongst enforcement for our commercial fisherman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mcgardy, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without getting to the substance of the amendment, my objection to this amendment relates to the line 79 that includes in appropriation of 2000 thousand dollars to restore the reduction on marine patrol activities, the money is coming from clean water management trust and if we start down this road of just taking money out of the trust fund that is specifically designated for one thing to cover some other cause somewhere else , it’s a very dangerous precedent and so I urge putting aside the substance of amendment that the amendment is flawed in terms of where it proposes to fund what the author of the amendment would like to have funded. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tine, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I assure the concerns about the spot the money and I take this opportunity to share that the chair is going to conference debate that is, that it will be in conflict is that each time we have gone into an agreement with federal government and our coastal areas whether it is the park service or it one of the enforcement agencies we have been told one thing on the coast , we have been given something else over the time and it may not be next year may not be 2 years and may not be 5 years but you look down the road and the park that we gave them inheritors that was supposed to be able, so we have access the people have access to the beach of those areas is now cut off completely much the time because of the way they are managing that facility at the federal level despite the promises that we have been writing from the federal government that time, so I, why I agree with the spirit of it and will probably point green on it , I hope the chair here see me as in regards to the joint enforcement because that needs to be taken care in the conference. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am in favour of this amendment. The federal government controls us by the dollar, if we start taking to have a joint agreement on law enforcement on the waters 2-3 years down the road it’s not gonna be our enforcement it will be federal government’s enforcement, we are bounce saying yes sir yes sir because we don’t wanna lose the free dollar its 200 thousand dollars coming out of the clean water trust fund, I don’t like the idea of taking money out of the clean water trust fund for this but our rules are as such that it was probably the best place to represent the specially we can find and there is another 7 million dollars if I remember rightly in the budget of clean water trust fund , so we are not putting any great harm to the trust fund. When I am out on the boat in the News river I don’t want to have the worry of what a federal agent pulling me over and looking at my boat, it’s not his business , we have state enforcement, they can look at my boat and may have and I have no problem with that. We do not need to get in another entitlement on our coastal waters with the federal government , it will come to no end, I don’t know how many of you have read the wolf problem out on the coast but the federal government has basically decimated or deal popular

...a turkey, all of them are okay out there. Because of the Red Wolf, and they have lied to us over and over again. It was a program of introduction. Well I will get out of the Red Wolf, but it was a classic example of what happens when you deal with the Federal Government, in wildlife or well just leave it in this wild life area. We do not need another entanglement. Vote for the Amendment. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Representative Pittman, please state your purpose. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Debate The Amendment. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Gentlemen is recognized to debate the Amendment (SPEAKER CHANGES) Thank you Sir, I just want to add my voice to say, saving money is a great thing and getting money from where we can sometimes is good, but not if it means selling your soul to the devil, and dealing with the Federal Government is selling your soul to the devil, and I’m in favor of this Amendment, thank you. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Speaker I am going to debate a second time. (SPEAKER CHANGES) The gentleman is recognized to debate the Amendment a second time. (SPEAKER CHANGES) The Agency that we are going to be partnering with, Okay? I’ve got a copy I’m going to read of a recent audit. ”Senior leadership elements need to exercise substantial ly greater management in oversights of the Agencies regional enforcement operations. They need to strengthen their policy guidance, procedures and internal controls in enforcement operations, to address a common industry perception that it’s Civil penalty assessment process is arbitrary and unfair. They need to re-asses their work force composition, to determine if 90% criminal investigation enforcement structure is effective for accomplishing its mission. Fisherman and other industry sources express concern that ?? fines are excessive, constituting a form of bounty. Because they are able to retain the proceeds from enforcement cases. I can go on and on okay, it’s a damming audit, and we do not need to get ourselves involved in an organization, State, Federal, or otherwise that can’t even keep its own house in order, and we don’t need them to come here and try to keep our house in order. We don’t need to be subservient to them, we don’t need them to be adding things and powers to our folks, for our Fisheries folks, so that it could subject the State to fines and things, and it’s going to cost us more in the long run for equipment that they are going to need to enforce Federal Laws along the coast. It’s just a bad deal. We all said smaller government – most of us ?? we said smaller government, and here we are, we’re going to expand our reach into the Federal Government. We are going to team up with them. Look,. They are out of money so if they are doing this for the money, and that’s what It looks like, the check is not going to be cashable here in the near future. I can guarantee that. We need to just maintain our sovereignty . I like Representative Murphy’s comment that we are the only State that doesn’t do this. That’s a point of pride with me, and it should be with you, and I ask you to support this Amendment. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Representative Insko, please state your purpose. (SPEAKER CHANGES) I wish to debate the motion. (SPEAKER CHANGES) The lady is recognized to debate the Amendment. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Thank you Mr. Speaker, Ladies and gentlemen of the house, this is what happens, when we take too much money out of our revenue stream. We end up having to compete. One good cause competes with another good cause. We should not be doing this, we need to look at revenue. Vote no. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Representative ?? please state your purpose. (SPEAKER CHANGES) See if Representative Murry will yield for a question. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Representative Murry, does the gentlemen yield? (SPEAKER CHANGES) I yield. (SPEAKER CHANGES) The gentleman yields. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Representative Murry, I am trying to follow this and understand what’s going on. First question is this. How long have other States had these joint agreements and I guess North Carolina has not had them before? (SPEAKER CHANGES) For several years. (SPEAKER CHANGES) For several years? (SPEAKER CHANGES) Years, we had the opportunity to tap into this, and this opportunity to decrease the number of Federal Agencies policing commercial fishermen, and using State agencies to do that and get Federal money to do so, for years. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Second question Mr. Speaker? (SPEAKER CHANGES) The gentlemen yields. (SPEAKER CHANGES) What’s the jurisdictional area of the Federal government? Is this only on the high seas? Or, is this back in the rivers and the estuaries that are, would be solely thought of as being in North Carolina, vs on the high seas? (SPEAKER CHANGES) It would be..

the ladder (letter?) that you've described as high seas, this doesn't involve the estuaries, my understanding. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As I've mentioned in my answer to Representative Blust, right now we have state agents policing commercial fishermen and federal agents policing commercial fisherman. This joint enforcement agreement lowers that to just state agents helping reducing the amount of burden on our commercial fishermen to allow state agents to be federally funded. Use the money that every other state is using on every other coastal state. And to make sure these operations are more efficient. Peronally, if I had a choice between a federal DEA agent coming to my pharmacy or a state SBI agent coming to my pharmacy, I'll take the SBI agent every day because that's within our existing structure. I think that's the point of the joint enforcement agreement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair for the question of Representative Murry. {SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, does the gentleman yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gladly. {SPEAKER CHANGES} The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've mentioned the boundaries. I think you told us that it was out on the high seas. What is the limit on that? Is a mile out? Two miles out? Cause I'm concerned about them coming up New (?) River. [SPEALER CHANGES] We're dealing with, the situation you're describing is a situation that concerns me as well. Federal agents encroaching into state waters. This joint enforcement agreement uses state agents to help police federal waters. That's how I see the joint enforcement agreement. Your concerns are very valid. This is a one way street, not really a two way street. We're not allowing the federal agents to police state waters. It's the other way around. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the amendment set forth by Representative Speciale for the House Committee substitute 2 Bill 744. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 30 have voted affirmative. 85 in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative Dollar has recognized a amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar moves to amend the bill on page 7, page 30 by deleting the amount. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Szoka, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, this is purely a technical amendment that corrects some figures and some punctuation errors, some citations. I appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the Hosue the passage of the amendment set forth by Represenative Dollar for the House Committee substitute 2 Bill 744. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 113 have voted affirmative. 1 in the negative. The amendment passes. Ladies the gentlemen, the Chair is going to take the vote time a different direction. We're going to allow 20 seconds. At the end of the 20 seconds, the chair will not allow or introduce any votes to be counted unless they are recorded in those 20 seconds. So let me repeat. We will go to 20 seconds, but there will be no recorded votes after the 20 second period. Representative Burr is recognized to set forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr moves to amend the bill on page 85, lines 10 through 51 and on page 86, lines 1 through 5, deleting those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment removes a special provision in the budget that is trying to reset the social services commission and this will basically allow the current social services commission to stay in place. I would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate.

If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Burr for the House Committee Substitute number 2 of Senate Bill 744. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 117 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Murray is recognized to send forth ALM-86. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment ALM-86 v6. Representative Murray moves to amend the bill on page 151, lines 18 through 23 by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The department of commerce has requested a little bit of flexibility on how to achieve the $637,500 savings in the community development block grant funding, so this would give them the flexibility to instead of only looking at position elimination, they can look across the department, across this program to help find the savings that we’re looking at, to swap out money that we’re doing. And so I would move adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Murray for the House Committee Substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 744. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] All members please record. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 117 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Cunningham is recognized to send forth ALG-67. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham moves to amend the bill on page 217, lines 19 and 20 by adding between those lines the following. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m sorry Mr. Speaker. This amendment right here is about the libraries. And there are two libraries that are going to be impacted. Two library systems. One is Wake County and one is Mecklenburg County. And I would like for us to start considering our libraries as learning centers because what is happening in the community I come from is that people that are unemployed and people may not have Internet services in their homes, so they are going to the libraries to use the Internet services. As well as children programs, we’re entering the summer and lots of children that may not be attending a day care program or some other type of program may be going to the libraries to learn to read, early reading inside the libraries. So the 2% reduction to the libraries in Mecklenburg and Wake, I really don’t see where it’s equitable and fair that the largest two libraries should take a cut right now especially when we’re looking at a dollar for every dollar that’s spent there’s a six dollar return ratio. Additionally, these libraries in our communities the last time they were reduced and didn’t get county funding, we went to save our libraries and tried to raise the money to keep them open. But in the impoverished areas where people that are low income, people that have kids that may not have the opportunity to attend some of these other things that are out in the community, the libraries are where they have to go. So that is why I’m asking for the money to be moved and to restore the 2% to the Wake County Library and the Mecklenburg County Library. Because it’s fair and everyone will be receiving the same thing. Please support the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would hope we all vote no on this amendment. We did the best we could in the subcommittee for libraries. We protected the regional libraries. We’ve unfortunately capped the amount of money that can be given to each system and that impacted Mecklenburg

And Wake Counties. They are the largest counties in the state and I would hope the commissioners in those counties will help their libraries, they’ll look after their libraries. In reading the way this amendment is written, I’m not sure any of this money would go to Mecklenburg and Wake County anyway. But please vote no on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the amendment a second time, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. It is approximately $142,000 that would be recurring, that would be cut out of both Wake and Mecklenburg counties’ budgets. I ask you to still consider supporting the amendment so we are functioning on an equal basis throughout the whole entire state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question of Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland, I believe I heard you say that way you all decided it was to cap these two counties because we’re sort of big enough to take care of ourselves, but then you also imply that the amendment as written won’t do what she’s suggesting that it would do. Could you help us clarify what might need to be changed in the amendment, to get it to do what she’s trying to get it to do? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I actually do not want to get involved in clarifying the amendment to do what she would like it to do. And another thing here, go ahead, I’m sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, may I redirect that question to someone who could answer whether or not the amendment does what she’s trying to get it to do? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, you could, if we know who you could. [LAUGHTER] What we will do with Representative Cunningham’s agreement is to temporarily displace this amendment so that Representative Samuelson and other interested parties can confer with staff. Without objection, we’ll move forward. Representative Shaw is recognized to send forth ALH95. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ALH95, Representative Shaw moves to amend the bill on page 75, lines 27 and 28 by inserting between those lines the following. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, I tried this amendment in committee yesterday and it was voted down at the request of the chairs. All this simply does is if you look in the budget in the money book, you’ll find that there’s a 28 26 29% flexible option for the university, a flex cut for the university. And what we’re trying to do, actually the ?? says it should not be spread out across the board. But if you look at the portion that this is amending, it says that there is a possibility that it can be spread across the board. What this would do would be to eliminate those focus growth institutions from that flex cut being put upon them. If you know these institutions you know that they have had hard times in the past, and that they need these funds and that it’s just one of those situations where a lot of the larger universities can afford to take any kind of cut at all but these no telling what kind of cut the board of governors or anybody would put upon these particular institutions. So we are asking that they just be, not, that they not allow those cuts to go across the board to those particularly focus growth institutions. I appreciate your support, I’d be happy to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the co-chairs of the ?? subcommittee, I’d like to ask the members of the House to oppose this amendment. When the particular provision in question came over from the Senate, one of the things that we did was eliminate, to carve out special protections

that some individuals had succeeded in putting in there to say the Board of Governors has to have a hands-off attitude with respect to certain institutions. What Representative Michaux is trying to do here is to add special protection in that will isolate, or insulate rather, certain institutions from the Board of Governors being able to look at them and make cuts. What we need to do is understand that the Board of Governors can consider the very factors that Representative Michaux would have us use as a way of tying the hands of the Board of Governors. They can understand when an across the board is inappropriate. That's their job. We urge you to reject this and let the board distribute these cuts as they believe most appropriate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, to be excused pursuant to rule 24.1A from deliberations in voting on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman be excused from the vote. Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak a second time, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to agree with Representative Blackwell on his statement that he made if I had some assurance that this, that anybody who's in the administration in the university system would take this in to account. But giving what has happened, particularly in the past month/ month and a half with one of those institutions, it just scares me that they don't pay attention. I don't like to label anybody at all but sometimes some of us just gettin' lost in everything that goes on. I'm just trying to prevent us from becoming lost because these focus growth institutions are the ones that have suffered when it comes time for cuts, when it comes time for not getting the things that they need. We've always had to basically fight to keep those institutions going. This is just a very simple, literal thing, don't let them put any more cuts on those institutions. I know right now that right now most of them have had, some up to 3% cuts already without this going into effect, and this has affected the way that their staff, their faculty, all of this in there. Just don't let this affect these small institutions that have made significant contributions to this state. I ask that you support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak briefly on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentleman. I'd like to support this amendment. We just spent a long time talking about making special provisions for special students at special times and this is one of those. Clearly we need to have some guarantees that people are not judged more harshly than others and these schools have worked hard and we need to make sure that they continue to not only survive but to thrive. So I would ask you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Michaux to the House Committee Substitute #2 of Senate Bill 744. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 44 having voted in the affirmative, 71 in the negative, the amendment fails. Representative Earle is recognized to send forth AME-64. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Earle moves to amend the bill on page 96, line 38 by adding the following sentence to the end of section 12H.1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Earle is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, could this be displaced temporarily please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment will be displaced. Representative Insko is recognized to send forth ATR-15. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insko moves to amend the bill on page 105, line 36 through page 106, line 15 by deleting section 12H.36 on those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this provision describes a process for appointing the director of the Division of Medical Assistance, our Medicaid program in the Department of Health and Human Services. It requires ?? secretary of Health and Human Services to make a recommendation to the Governor

And for the Governor to submit that for confirmation to the General Assembly. This people over the school of government tell me that this is an encroachment on the responsibility and authority of the administrative branch by the legislative branch and that could be a constitutional issue. That’s not actually what bothers me the most. The most troubling thing I think is what is found in the second half of this on page 106. This says if the Governor doesn’t submit that name to the General Assembly for confirmation, let the Speaker of the House and President approach him, can’t submit a name and we will have a bill that we will vote and the General Assembly will appoint a Medicaid Director. Those of you who have not been here very long and have observed some of the turmoil in Medicaid and in the Department of Health and Human Services might think that this is a good solution but in the eighteen years I’ve been here, I believe I can name twelve, ten to twelve different Medicaid Directors. Nationally they serve about two years in any state. So if an effort to sort of require or set up a system where we hope that we would get more continuity actually is a system I think that would make for more chaos. One of the most important things about a successful Medicaid Director is the trust and confidence that the Secretary has in that person, the trust and confidence that the Governor has in that person and that does the State Budget office has in that person. Those are all administrative duties in the Department of Administration. This might be a well-meaning amendment but I believe it violates our Constitution. I believe it will create more problems than it solves. I support the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services appointing that person and that we would assist them by making sure that we have enough money in the budget to hire a good person. And I will probably vote for my amendment and make this correction. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr, please state your purpose. Speak on the ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Speaker. I would ask members to oppose this amendment. The language used here is very similar language that is in place for other positions. You remember just a few weeks ago we had confirmations here in the House for the Controller and for other positions. It is something that we do and I believe that it is an important; certainly Medicaid Director is important even as Representative Insko pointed out. I mean, look the issues that we’ve had over the previous years. I think that it is critical and, and a good move for the General Assembly to have an opportunity to confirm that person and to raise the stature of the position of Medicaid Director and put it at a different level and to; yes, give the ability for someone to hold that position for five years so that perhaps they can actually fix something over there. It’ll be nice. So I would ask that you oppose this amendment and leave this provision here in allowing us to, to move forward with, with the confirmation for a future Medicaid Director. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is to pass it to the the amendments?? by Representative Insko to the House Committee Services suite No. 2 of Centreville 744. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. Forty four have voted affirmative, seventy-four in the negative. The amendment fails. Ladies and gentlemen, the Chair would like to thank Representative Ramsey for the ice-cream. I’m enjoying a cup of strawberry right now. Thank you very much. Representative Reives is ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Reives moves to end the bill on page 169, line 43 by re- riding the line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen is recognized to divide the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, thank you Mr. Speaker.

What I’ve done here is I hope has done at least a decent job of putting together some of the issues and some of the questions that some of the people had about the SBI transfer. I’m hoping that this amendment does not violate any policies and the entire transfer itself. And what I’m attempting to do with this is to address one of the issues that was stated early on when we began this process, about some of the policy concerns we had about the transfer to SBI. What I would address in this amendment is only the public corruption unit, and no other unit of the SBI. Fiscally it doesn’t violate any of the economic transfers for the transfer to SBI. I don’t think in theory it violates any policies. It doesn’t change anything but it does keep that unit separate. What I’ve attempted to do is talk to people on both sides of the aisle about the concerns with the SBI transfer, what would make them satisfied, and try to craft something that would satisfy both sides in that manner. As stated, it doesn’t violate any of the policy that was put forth in the transfer of the SBI bureau to the department of public safety but we also do at least have an opportunity to address the one thing that I think most of the general public, both your sheriffs, your law enforcement, people of those sort, would have with the SBI’s independence. And that allows for the public corruption unit to be a separate unit that’s still under the AG’s office. I think the second thing that it does is that it would restore confidence in these times that the SBI is called in. Too many times we think of the public corruption unit as being a unit that addresses state-wide corruption, state-wide officials, things of that sort. This is something as simple as a magistrate or a deputy or somebody related to somebody of that sort, at the local level. And our DAs an our sheriffs get an opportunity to have the SBI investigate this and feel that it’s an independent investigation and more important for them, for the communities to feel like it’s an independent investigation that’s resolved in a good way. And so we just ask that you would please support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, I would ask you to vote against this amendment. What we’re talking about is keeping politics out of the SBI. We have done our very best to do that. Taking the corruption unit and leaving it with the Attorney General, believing that he is not political, is a fallacy. It is, we have done the very best we can to take politics out and we want to move the whole thing over. And certainly the director who has an eight year term will be independent enough to conduct the investigations as we expect him to. So vote against the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Reives, to House Committee Substitute number 2 to Senate Bill 744. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 47 having voted in the affirmative, 69 in the negative, the amendment fails. Representative Glazier is recognized to send forth AMK-102. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier moves to amend the bill on page 39, line 36 through page 40, line 9 by deleting the lines and. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, may we temporarily displace this amendment, please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment will be temporarily displaced. Representative Holley is recognized to send forth ATMX-52. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley moves to amend the bill on page 279, line 37 and 38 by inserting the following. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an amendment to reinstate the earned income tax credit for the state of North Carolina. Trying to do so by not [COUGH], I’m trying to help the unincorporated poor, by taking 4/10ths of 1% from the corporate money that they’re trying to give the ?? corporate money to instead of taking it down from 6 to 5, to go from 6 to 5.6. 4/10ths of a percent, we’re trying to take it down. Now what this

Is this who enables the working people the working class people who are not usually own an income tax credit more than 2 years and opportunity to stay off welfare rules stay off other public assistance rules. The average person who get the earn income tax credit is someone who is out there working and there are people who don't stay on it very long because they are not able to get enough funding and move on and move up I think we need to look into something for poor in this general assembly because we have been overlooking them for the whole time I have been here. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members we have debate about this issue for at least 2 may be 3 years. If you were a member when we talked about allowing the earn income tax credit to sunset. We talked about how much fraud ?? there was in the program I am gonna ask you to vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Richardson please state you purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES The Lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again I stand and ask my fellow colleagues you support this amendment. We have so many people who would benefit from these dollars and our local government and our home towns were also benefit and when we talk about abuse we have abused right here in the general assembly. But we didn't forbid everybody else from running because a few people chose not to follow the law. So I don't our poor disadvantage people should be held to higher standards that any other population of people. These were dreams that our citizen had they delayed dreams because they were trying to save funds for different items and different wishes and when did it let be our sunset we literally crashed those dreams and we destroyed the thoughts of ever rising themselves raising themselves out of poverty and hopefully not been in class of always having to have people look out for them self I urge you to remember that just because one population commits some people on a population it should not relegate everyone in there population to be punished as we have done here based on this letting this issue sunset. I urge to vote for those who need these dollars and look at how it would benefit our different countess I could spread sheet desk as well as representative Stearns put on my desk but I still beg you forgive those people who have violated this rule and support the people who try to work hard and live honestly and he use the funds they have to realize their dreams thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members this original earn income tax credit is something that I voted 4 years ago when I was here but I agree with representative Howard we should defeat this amendment. Look at the things that have changed during the last 3 years particularly we have lower taxes across the borders in this state we have lowered the sales tax we have lowered the service tax we have pushed tax reforms and tax reductions around the state that help everybody this is no longer needed my friend and I urge the body to vote against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker I wanted to say first I support the amendment and I gonna remind everyone that the biggest backer of the expansion of the federal earn income tax program was present ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke your for question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] When I am finished. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is not yell. The gentleman has the for. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And president Wagon and later president Clinton are those between recognize there were many people working who didn't make enough money from their work to really make a living. They did not have a living wage and the notion behind the earned income tax credit is that it is.

For people who are working. 22% of north Carolinians most recent data available 22% of our population qualify, well more qualify, 22% have filled for the earned income tax credit benefit. It or something that is simply fair in particularly herms those from wool counties those with the high level of unemployment high level of poverty, the jobs don't pay very well and it is a good reason to spot it there. Finally I would say to the reference to my friend representative Moore who spoke to the issue of the tax changes last year. It's not that they are working poor benefit really from the tax changes, give you just one example, the sells tax on yours and my power bill, sales tax on the electricity went from 3% to 7%, a lot of sells tax. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Floyd please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] And I want to ask gentleman a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Does the gentleman you? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do not you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman does not you. The chair anticipates several questions after the gentleman competes his debate. The gentleman may continue. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Happy to entertain them then. So the point when we think about the tax reform, the tax changes on 2013 session. Is that the great majority of the monies in the intern come tax cut went to the super wealthy. Indeed according to the ?? research 20,000 file, 20,000 tax fillers who are millionaire will have a tax break this year of a3 hundred million dollars. This amendment simply asks you to help a million tax fillers to the tune of a hundred million dollars. We have a million people benefiting from this amendment versus 20,000 people who actually are getting the three times what this amendment will cost us in the state. It is only fair to help the working poor and the working families to the tune of 1 hundred thousand, I am sorry 1 hundred million dollars when other groups are making a tax break of 3 hundred million dollars plus I urge you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stam please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Luebke your for question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Does the gentleman you? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Luebke you are not old enough to remember ??. Do you recall it's rational for the earn income tax credit with these folks were praying pay roll taxes like social security and Medicare tax? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes Sir I think it's no different then these folks paying 7% now on their electricity bill when they used to pay 3%. [SPEAKER CHANGE] And you realize the second question of mine? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Does the gentleman you? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I am. [SPEAKER CHANGE] You realize there is no pay roll tax in North Carolina? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stam what I was trying to say is that when this body the majority raise the sells tax and electricity from 3% to 7% that is something we have to try to overcome and the earning income tax credit helps in that direction. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Second question for what? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Does the gentleman you? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I think it's the third question. Yes I yells. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yells. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Luebke do you realize that from 2003 to 2010 I believe you were the chair of the finance committee and you raised extra penny on the sells tax which disproportionately effects the poor for all those years. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stam what I remember is that we kept a fair income tax in those who made a whole lot of money, that's what we did and we brought the income that we needed for the state by asking the vault to do to make their pay their per share. We had to make due with more sells tax yes on a temporary basis but it came down after the temporary basis thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Louis please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house I feel like when we debate issues here or is very important to have the facts and the information that are shared on this floor at least presented in a fair way. First of all I wanna say to the amendment.

Speaker: Let us make a concluding statement we are not looking at ??, Speaker Changes: I think the gentlemen withdraws the question,the gentle men is recognized to debate the amid, Speaker Changes: That's the one of the thing i have feelings that's the conference one thing i like to conference to get nailed down make sure that we don't get unlimited exposure?? Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To debate the amid, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized o debate the amid, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr. speaker i have debated this subject before and Representative ?? i m going to say about the same thing but differently.In my opinion i dint like this approach yo start with my opinion was to extend the daylight we have six more years ?? and we confusing the issue but i would go along with whatever we can get we 'll take a half a low because you are talking about 4200 jobs is like imposing a ?? tax in another industry and sending under Georgia.And i make a ?? wars of and like Georgia makes an evil empire.And they were come us and here 4000 plus jobs ?? not quite as good.The producers the pane would studios are billing there James Bond and harry potter folks in the ?? area fellow producers of dear movies ?? right next to screen Jim's.Which now scolding people in Wilmington ?? if we don't do something reasonable to keep his folks here.And the only study that have been done outside the ivory tower in rally and economic study.?? says we are getting a dollar 5 back for every dollar investing.They need to hurry for dealing out ?? also says were he is discovered so far i think he is very low ten dollars in the economy for every dollar spent and i think he has just scratch the survey and it is the only thing he have done so folks just thanks about what you doing if you don't do anything and if you don't do enough to stay in the running and Georgia is after us and would say little bit of proud in North Carolina ?? but i learn north Carolina a lot more thank you, Speaker Changes: Representative Davis please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To speak on he bill of the amid, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill the second time, Speaker Changes: Thank you ,in response to the Representative ?? comments well i would prefer to have the present film tax quite to continue and i wouldn't learned a lot about the process when i was in finance committee yesterday and i run to process the amid and i would respect the process, but i also in the realistic and i realize there are not sufficient amount of votes in the pass of the house to film ?? to employ upon you to vote for this amid and supported cause the most important thing of this it will allow the ?? issue to proceed the conference so we have further discussion between the house and the senate so i would ask you to please support that purpose, Speaker Changes: the question before the house is the passage of the amid send forward by representative Davis as amended house committee substitute no 2 for to send forth the bill 744.All in favor vote aye.Now the clerk will open the vote .the clerk will record the machine to quote the vote.19 have voted in the affirmative and 26 in the negative and the amid passes, Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: I would like o be as recorded as voting no the Howard protecting amendment, Speaker Changes: The lady would be recorded on voting no on the Howard amendment Speaker Changes: Representative ?? is recognized to send forth the amid AMG-64 the ??, Speaker Changes: Representative lose to amend the bill on page 78 line 21 by adding new section after that line to read,

There is no means that the dollars were fraud and when have we start the bank you know let’s be realistic lets be proportionate about this, yes there are some things that have affected people overall representative Louis, you know there are some things that are people are hurting the number one fraud thing that they are talking about that they said was fraud, my research is proved because these people can’t afford to have recounted to do their tax forms and made an error on it and improving is that an error and not necessarily fraud that has caused some of the so called abuse in this system. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, these people aren't asking for a handout they are asking for a hand, a temporary help, for 1-2 years until they can get to the point that they can sustain themselves. And like the representative ? said, yes we can go in my district and I can show you a lot of things and I can bring people here in tell you how important that little bit of money made in their lives. So they ask me as their representative to plead their case and that’s what I am doing here today and I say let’s not hurt the poor, let’s do that what we can and give them a hand and not a handout. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the house, first I want to make one thing clear on the fraud I don’t think anyone who address this fraud and this program is necessarily saying it’s the poor people who are committing the fraud, a lot of times its not poor people , it’s some sophisticated scum man that set up phony people and generate this because it’s a completely refundable tax that many times means that it’s just a cheque coming from the government to the tax payers, it doesn't have to be poor person, it’s just a way to get cash now this our state earned income tax credit was equal to 5% of the federal earned income tax credit, we piggybacked on the federal, the statistics show at the federal level there was like 30%, I think it has been reduced to slightly 20’s now, so if we are spending on the North Carolina 105 million dollars on the earned income tax credit that means around 30 million of that is flat out go into to scam artists, what happens with the tax that formed last year we took that 105 million the provision sun setted by its own terms that for the built 5 years , now 6 years ago. It was allowed to sunset but that 100 is used to lower tax rates across the board in all kinds of manners to benefit North Carolinians , many of those same people and its just one thing that move me to speak today is the concern for the poor expressed by advocates of this amendment and those same advocates were rowing to raise sales taxes on those same poor people for probably the about the same amount as they are getting from the earned income tax credit and I heard no whaling when the tax increased the sales tax increases run into effect when the democrats were in the majority that this will fall on the poor and the tailor’s tax just increased didn't just fall on the poor, the working poor , it fell on the unemployed and the non-working anyone who has spent money in this state for goods and some services was taxed when democrats were in the majority, now the average benefit is a 110-115 per tax return, I don’t believe that’s is going to live someone out of the poverty that additional 110 dollars a year , I do think the same amount and much more has been returned to those same taxpayers and other changes of the law we have made in the last 2 or 3 years including doing away with that one sales tax that hit the same people, so we have returned to those people affected by this, more money than into their pockets than they would have gotten through this earned income tax credit, so I urge you to defeat the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative? please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s been much talk about fraud here and I thought I just add a couple of words and some statistics that come from the department of treasury. Treasury inspector general for administration has been tracking the fraud problems NEITC since 2003 whose report you can

?? that they did August 28th 2013, which in from the time they started in 2003 that the improper payments, and their formula addressed the fact that some people make honest mistakes. So when they're talking about improper formulas they deducted out addition, subtraction errors things like that. In 2003 improper payments was estimated at 30% of all EITC returns, we've gotten better as a country from 2003 to 2012 in 2012 it was 25% so what that means is 25% of these EITC applications are fraudulent. Now what's that mean for the state of North Carolina? Well 112 million dollars I think is the number for 2012 which means that this state paid out 28 million dollars in fraudulent EITC claims, 28 million dollars. I for one am not willing to vote to continue to send millions of dollars from the state treasury out to people who are committing fraud, so it's not honest mistakes we're talking about what we're talking out is outing out fraud the number is 28 million dollars. Representative Collins please state your purpose. Briefly debate the amendment. The gentleman's recognize to debate the amendment. Not trying to repeat what others have said but I do want to piggyback on what some including representative Lewis have said, I think there's just two different approaches here, our approach through tax reform has been to help the working poor with the three things he's already mentioned. There's no way in the world that if you add up the reduced sales tax the increased child tax credit and the greatly increased standard deduction that we're not benefiting these poor working families by more than the 115 dollars that the earned income tax credit was giving them. Also as has been stated by representative Holloway that's designed to be a very temporary thing lasting just a year or two, whereas the tax changes we've made will help these working poor forever. For the rest of their lives, because these aren't changes we're going to go back and re change again. So I would just like to say that we've done more for the working poor than the earned income tax credit has we want to keep those changes permanent not just rely on something that works for a year or two, I would ask you to defeat this amendment. Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose. Debate the amendment. The gentleman's recognize to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr Speaker, and members of the house I appreciate your indulgence in this issue and as you know we can approach it from an individual standpoint and say we don't realize we cut unemployment benefits, and we could say we don't realize we decided not to expand medicaid, and take knock all the other legs out from under poor North Caronlinians and say we did this one thing. We can say we think for the purpose of the cameras or whoever else is watching we can indulge in that fiction and say we don't know we did that over the last few years. We do know we did it, we do know these people are suffering and we do know, and I agree with representative Blust it may be a small amount of money to those of us in here, but for people who are trying to make it every day, trying to put food on the table trying to keep heat in their houses in the wintertime that little bit of money each month is the difference between them being homeless and then having to go into more benefits and programs that we provide or being able to stay in some minimal amount of protection and housing for their family. So yes for us it doesn't mean anything. For most of us we're well enough off that we wouldn't even dream about what earned income tax credit would mean, but for the folks that we have continually taken any support away from, and yes there have been some tax changes but they haven't been in isolation. We have reduced that unemployment insurance and we reduced the period of time that they would have so for us to address this issue as if it stands alone and this is the only affect we have on our poor working.. Mr speaker. Representative Blust please state your purpose. Representative Hall yield for a question. Be glad to yield when I've completed sir. The gentleman has the floor. So I think we do need to be honest with ourselves, this does not exist in the ?? I agree with representative Blust if there was some fraud and representative Szoka if there was fraud in the old program that old program has ceased we have new mechanisms new ability to track situations and TO have applications. Let's start the programs let's be fair let's help our poor and unemployed and our poor working poor let's help them let's put a program in place now with all that we've learned with all the different technology we now have in place let's put a program in place and help these North Carolinians there's no excuse to say there might be fraud so we won't use our best efforts to help our fellow

citizens. That's something we have to do, I mean, I believe many of you probably pledged that across the campaign trail - to try to help those need help the most. And this is the opportunity to do it. Again, you can start this program back, it's not under the same roles, it's not the same people, and it doesn't have to have the same enforcement mechanisms as before, but we can help North Carolinians and this is our opportunity to do it. The most people with the least amount of money that will make the greatest difference. And if we decide not to do that, then the shame is on us for not taking this opportunity to help those who are struggling in North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Holley for the House Committee substitute Number 2 for Senate Bill Number 744. All in favor vote Aye, all opposed No. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote - 41 having voted in the affirmative, 73 in the negative, the amendment fails. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, having voted on the prevailing side, I move that House Bill 292, short title Moratorium Lawsuit for School Funds be reconsidered and asked to be recognized to debate at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Mr. Speaker, Members, as you know, earlier this afternoon we voted to not concur with House Bill 292 and that was done based in part believing that the Senate had adjourned subject to the receipt of - excuse me - appointment of conferees. Turns out that the Senate did not adjourn subject that, they did, however, adjourn subject to the ratification and a number of other things. In consultation with Representative Glazier, who was very involved with this process, Representatives Torbett, Mark Brody, Stam, Blackwell - I'm trying to remember if I've left anybody out. I think we've been around the horn about three times with this thing. We have come up with a solution, and the way this would work, would be that there were some constitutional issues I believe Representative Glazier raised, and Representative Stam raised. There is going to be a fix for that, that will be addressed in a separate bill that will be dealt with in rules during the recess, but would be sending this bill over simply to the Senate - would be on a motion to concur that would be made thereafter. But at this point, Members, I would simply ask for your affirmative vote on the motion to reconsider so that the bill will be back before us. We can then debate the merits of the motion to concur that I believe Representative Brody will make at that time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the motion, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would encourage people to vote yes on the motion to reconsider. And, while I have concerns, I think the constitutional concerns will be fixed in one - in the bill, there is still policy concerns that I will speak to, and I'm sure others, about the bill and the reconsideration. But I think, in fairness, to get this heard and decided on the merits because I believe the majority has solved at least the constitutional question, I would encourage you to vote for Representative Moore's motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the motion is to reconsider the vote to not concur on the Senate Committee substitute for House Bill 292. All in favor vote Aye, all opposed vote No. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote - 113 having voted affirmative, 2 in the negative, the motion passes. The bill is now before us. Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do concur with House Bill 292 as presented and would briefly offer just a couple of comments, if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Members, again, vote your conscience if you have a difference of opinion about the policy or the merits of this bill. I will tell you this is a local bill that was brought forth by the - and affects only Gaston, Nash, and Union counties. It is a - the ??

constitutional issues I can assure you are being addressed and will be dealt with in the rules committee that will be meeting at the recess. So I would urge the Body's support on the Bill. Otherwise, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brody, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to be real quick on this and kind of reassure everybody that those of you who wish to go back to your constituents, you might want to reassure them that this is a local bill and if they're really concerned, you can let them know they still can be sued unless you're not from Union, Nash, or Gaston. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Richardson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry, thank you. My school board has called me and asked me to oppose this amendment because they're in the process of a mediation as we speak and this Bill will discontinue that and they feel that this Bill also imposes upon their authority to carry out their statute as school board members. I urge you to not vote for this Bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Since I'm from Nash county and Nash county is one of the counties listed on this. I just wanted the House to know that I received a unanimous resolution from the County Commissioners asking for this and the County Commission in Nash county is majority democrat. I would ask you to please support this Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glacier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, to speak to the motion, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and I want to speak to the things that were fixed and are that are going to be fixed and then but to talk about why I still oppose the Bill and the policy. But first appreciate that we've resolved some of the constitutional or the constitutional issue so it doesn't affect anyone else directly. There, the Bill when it comes forward will take care of the issue and allow school boards, including those in Union, Nash, and Gaston to still have access to the courts. It will not be through the statute which is what the moratorium is designed to do, now but if they have a case under Leandro or federal or state constitution they will be allowed to file that. And I think that's an appropriate fix for the policy, if you believe in the policy, and I appreciate that fix. I think the Bill will also will narrow and make sure everyone's clear that it doesn't affect anyone else's county. But the policy behind it, I want to talk to. So we're resolving a terrible dispute in Union county that the commissioners and school board apparently were unable to fully resolve and while that may be good or bad, that's up to the Union county folks to decide. It's a terrible thing that we're involved as a super-county commissioners and super-school board. I mean, sometimes the law was designed for those two to work it out, when they couldn't to mediate, when they refused or couldn't resolve, to go to court. Whether that's the best or right way to do it, I don't know. But I know that it's not up to us to solve that dispute and the problem that I have with this is even if the Union county folks agree and I'm assuming they do. Is, so the next time a county gets in a dispute, what's the precedent we've set? And what are we telling school boards and county commissioners across the state? I mean, there's one message being given, which is try to resolve your own problems. That's a good message generally. But the other message is and if you don't like the resolution come to us and we'll resolve it for you. On one side or the other depending on who's in control and what it is and that's a terrible message to send. And I think that will be sent and I fear that we will end up resolving lots of people's disputes by legislation as opposed to the process. The other thing I will tell you and it applies both to the motion on the current Bill and the Bill that's coming, that I didn't see, unrelated to constitution. But if you look at it, it talks about that the subsection that we're dealing with will expire on the 2016-17, I believe, budget adoption and it resolves the 2014-15 dispute and it also tells them how to resolve essentially the 15-16 dispute. There's nothing in here that resolves as I can tell the 16-17 dispute that may be on the horizon. It tells them they need to meet which they better, I mean after this they certainly should, but you know what can happen here and it certainly can happen to Nash and Gaston, because they don't resolve anything in this Bill, is what if the County Commissioners now say we're going to give you zero or we're going to give you 10%

We've told them, at least in those 3 counties 2016 for union, the other 2 for all 3 years. You don't get to sue under the statute. You can sue under the other things but you don't get to sue so a county board commissioners gets away with having complete and total leverage. I don't think that's what's intended here. i think the legislators are in good faith trying to solve an awful problem out of Union County and maybe as it appears out of Nash, but I fear we're opening far more doors for problems than we are solving today, for ourselves, for the state, for the school board and county commissioners and for that reason i'm voting against the motion and will vote against the bill. But on the constitutional issue that we worked on, that at least is resolved. [Speaker Change] Any members wishing to speak against the motion? The question before the house is the motion to concur an [??] committee substitute for house bill 292. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will [??] machine record the vote. 70 having voted affirmative and 42 in the negative. The motion passes. The senate will be so notified by special message. The chair apologizes, it will be ordered in [??]. Representative Tim Moore, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] For a motion. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [Speaker Change] To move the senate bill 355, the present short title is planning and harvesting dates and the new subtitle will be technical correction [??] and Nash Union local act. That bill be removed from the committee on transportation and be referred to the committee of rules, calendar and operations of the house. [Speaker Change] Without objection so ordered. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a recess. During that recess there will be what the chair believes to be a brief rules meeting in 1228 which the rules chair will properly notice and we are going to provide a 35 minute recess which will also be your dinner break so I woud use it wisely. That means that the recess we will come back at 5:10. When we return we have another 30 amendments. I'm just kidding. It's about 5. The chair understands that Representative Larry Hall intends to withdraw his amendment for consideration on third reading. The chair would ask any member who is preparing any other amendments to please turn on their lights now so we can get an idea of any other amendments we might receive. It looks like maybe only one amendment so that gives us about 5 or 6 amendments to dispose of before we start debating the bill. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] First of all for an announcement. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized to state his announcement. [Speaker Change] Members, the rules committee will meet immediately after recess in 1228, our normal room, to take up the bill I just re-referred. [Speaker Change] Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Mister Speaker, I had an age moment, and you gave us 20 seconds though I was in here about 1 second from the button i'd like to be recorded [??]. [Speaker Change] The chair apologizes but the chair will not be able to do that because of the precedent we've set for 119 other members. Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Announcement. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mister Speaker. Democratic caucus will caucus in 1425 immediately after session for 5 minutes. On this break for 5 minutes. [Speaker Change] Ladies and gentlemen the time to reconvene now will be 5:15. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Motion. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [Speaker Change] Mister Speaker I move that subject to ratification of bills, messages from the senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referral bills and resolutions, appointments of conferees, and modifications to the calendar for the house [??] in recess until 5:10 p.m. [Speaker Change] Correction to the motion will be 5:15 p.m. Representative Moore moves the house to now recess subject to ratification of bills, messages from the senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referral bills and resolutions, appointments of conferees, and modifications to the calendar. All in favor say aye. To reconvene at 5:15, the ayes have it. The house is in recess.

The house will come to order. Representative Tim Moore is recognized to send forth a committee report. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tim Moore for Rules, Calendar and Operations of the house. Senate Bill 355, planting and Harvesting Dates favorable is to House Committee Substitute Number 2, unfavorable is to House Committee Substitute Number 1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute Number 2, Calendar without objection for immediate consideration. House Committee Substitute Number 1, Unfavorable Calendar. Representative Moore. Senate Bill 355, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute Number 2 for Senate Bill 355, a bill to be entitled an act to make technical changes and clarifications in an act to establish a moratorium on filing of actions by certain local boards of education challenging the sufficiency of local funds appropriated to the public schools by the board of county commissioners. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the technical fix to the bill. So, whether you liked the bill or did not like the other bill, you can vote for this one. This is the technical fix that was agreed upon then we took it up in the rules committee. I think, even Representative Glazier may vote for this bill. So, I would urge the body’s yes vote, again, this fixes the technical – whether they were constitutional issues or not, this fixes it. I urge the body’s support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an inquiry, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would this be the point where members will need to get close to their voting buttons, Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would be, Yes Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The house will come to order. The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker and thank you, Members. Again, I’ll be voting against the bill only because it contains the other provisions but Representative Moore is right, it does the fix on constitutional issue. If it just had that, I’d be totally pleased but because it adds the rest in, it’s awfully hard to be consistent in the other way. I’ve made the arguments about why I think the rest of the bill is inappropriate but I do appreciate Representative Moore and the Speaker and everyone working on the constitutional fix. I’ll still be voting no for the other reasons though. Thank You. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Richardson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate to be able to sit in on the rules committee and observe the changes and my issues were not necessarily with the changes but with the fact that we have put Counties in here and now that we’ll resort to go into the State that’s gonna probably cost a lot more money than mediation would but I will still be voting against the bill. I thank you for the opportunity to sit in on the rules committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask the bill sponsor, a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, does the gentleman yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Earlier it was mentioned about potentially since local budgets haven’t been fully resolved at this point for Nash and Gaston counties. Does this resolve or preclude the potential to where their particular board of education could get a ?? and have no recourse. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill would prohibit in those three counties, as I understand, the board of education from suing the county commissioners on claiming that they did not receive the proper amount of funds. What this bill did, what this language did was to narrow the scope to those issues so that it wouldn't catch anything else that was unintended and I think that was the problem, and Representative Glazier is nodding, and I think it was the problem that Representative Stam, Representative Glazier and couple other found. So, we've already made that policy decision on the bill that we've already sent over to the Senate. This just narrows that a little bit to give comfort to those who thought there we some constitutional concerns. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the House Committee Substitute number 2 to Senate Bill 355 on its second reading. All in favor, vote Aye. All oppose, vote no. The clerk will open the vote.

The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 76 having voted in the affirmative, 32 in the negative. The House Committee Substitute Number 2 to Senate Bill 355 has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 355 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The aye's have it. The House Committee Substitute Number 2 to Senate Bill 355 has passed its third reading will be sent to the Senate by special message. Ratification of bills and resolutions. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The enrolling clerk will post following bill to be ratified property roll presented off secretary of state House Bill 292, an act to ?? moratorium on filing of actions certain local boards of education challenges issued local funds appropriated to the public schools by the county boards of commissioners. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Saine is recognized to send forth amendment AMH-76. The clerk will read. Oh, ladies and gentleman the bill, Senate Bill 744 is now back before us. The clerk will read the Saine amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Saine moves to amend the bill on page 125, the lines 22-24, by rewriting the lines to read: [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and welcome back. One more time with feeling, you've all heard about this amendment that's come up. Maybe not this amendment, you heard about a ghost amendment that was never there. You got a lot of emails about it. And it happened, the emails you got were about the Governor's language that he was trying to put into the budget which did not make it into our process. Over a year ago in May this House voted 101 to 14 to finally do something about the issue of animal abuse for dogs in our state and yes, while we all accomplished together something that the sponsors were told would never make it out of committee, we got it to the House floor. House Bill 930 passed out of the judiciary committee unanimously before our vote here and as we stood the amendment that I'm offering I keep looking around for those meddling kids, Shaggy and Scooby-Doo to show up 'cause they just don't happen to be here. It's been amazing to me that such opposition would come over our emails over an amendment that, again, never existed, while the government had language in it's budget to address this issue Moore County law currently provides standards for commercial dog breeders that sell to pet shops and research labs that does not provide standards for commercial dog breeders that sell directly to the public and so, given the language that he had put forth, it didn't match. It wasn't with the spirit of the bill of House Bill 930. As you'll recall, and as you'll look on that amendment, we exempt sporting dogs, hunting dogs, field trials, and so forth. The rationale being that I, as well as the sponsors and my co-sponsors understood that those folks take good care of their dogs and we wanted to avoid getting mixed up in the same old debate that has come through the House and Senate as we look at this issue that it somehow touches agriculture. So we got out of that. This is very similar to HB-930, contains the same definition of commercial dog breeder but does not spell out the standards which we did in that bill. You can only go so far and I know what the appetite might be for here today. The standards will established by the Department of Public Safety. If all we do is move the animal welfare section from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Public Safety, which is already in the budget that we're voting on tonight, without these changes we do nothing to address this issue and this problem in North Carolina. In fact, we go backwards. All the work that we have done along with the help of the Governor and the First Lady, will be gone and we'll have to start all over again. The language is much narrower than the original Governor's, than the original language in the Governor's budget proposal and only covers the large scale commercial breeders. North Carolina's one of the most popular states in the country for puppy mill

They know they can move in here because we don’t have state laws that regulate them. Virginia and Tennessee do, but North Carolina does not. North Carolinians had twenty puppy mills in the last two years. You have seen images of these puppy mills in the local news. As a matter of fact, since some of you need links, if you go to ?? News site and say North Carolinians, there is one going on the deck. Almost nine out of ten North Carolinians support regulations for commercial ?? I hop you would support this language. I will add it in there. Will send it to the senate and we will see what they will do with it. You know the history. I am not going to take up your night. We had a good word on this the same issue back last over a year ago. I urge your support and appreciate it [speaker changes] Rep Dickson, please state your purpose [Speaker changes] To debate the amendment [Speaker changes] Gentlemen Right now is to debate the amendment [Speaker changes] Thank you speaker. I was one of the positive votes in the last session and was very pleased to cast that positive vote. However, since then a lot of things has happened that should not have happened. I hope it’s not a surprise and this is one of the only disappointing things that I would have in reference to representatives saying in his eloquent speech supporting this amendment. If there is anybody on the floor of this house who is surprised that there is some announcement that there is some raid going on today then I have got some nice highway front property in the middle of goshim, which is a nice area in ?? I would like to sell you. You could go to the human society’s website and part of the web site you would find six pages of criteria for states to be graded according to what they refer to is human state rankings. On page 5 of those 6 pages, we would find this criteria. It’s about 70 or 80 about this criteria. Then they check all of these states whether these states meet that criteria or not. And on page 5 is this criteria. This includes basic human standards for dogs and puppy mills. And North Carolina is checked as being in compliance with that. So, I could stand here and say many other things. But believing that brevity can be powerful, I won’t say anything else less I have to asked to speak again rather than tell you that on a scale of 1 to 10 and my opposition to this amendment, I am at a 45 vote No. [Speaker Changes] President ?? Please state you purpose [Speaker changes] To debate the amendment Mr Speaker [Speaker Changes] Gentlemen Right now is to debate the amendment [Speaker changes] Thank you. I supported this bill when it came through. Last session. I am actually the owner of a puppy mill rescue from Brunswick county. Her name is Selvey and she had been in the cage for 3 years and I have no idea how many puppies she would have had. After the raid, we were asked to be her foster parents. After about two hours we fell in love and we decided to adopt her. But she could not walk. She had never been out of the cage. Her feet all brown her paws were all brown from standing in her own waist. She had all sorts of illnesses. Finally when she took her outside for the first time, the way she stood there and looked at the trees and looked at the sky, she saw the world for the first time. If we don’t find a way to make it better then we are not doing the right thing. I strongly urge you to support this. [Speaker changes] Rep Collins, Please state your purpose [Speaker changes] To see if Rep ?? would be here [Speaker changes] Rep ??, is there a gentlemen in you? [Speaker Changes] I think so [Speaker Changes] I believe I heard you say in there after the raid, is that what I understand correctly? [Speaker Changes] That’s correct [Speaker Changes] Gentlemen in yours [Speaker changes] This is one thing that I don’t understand about this whole bill. If we already have laws in place where we raid this puppy mill and take care of the problem, then what’s the need for this additional legislation? [Speaker changes] In my opinion it would and I have told to the local sheriff department, we would give them more authority to do more often inspections.

I think that would be what would help. [Speaker change] Representative Blust please state your purpose. [Speaker change] Speak on the amendment. [Speaker change] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker change] Thank you Mr.Speaker. Members of the House, I am in favor of doing this I voted for the bill but I do have some concerns as some others have seen in the past now about policy going in to the budget. And I’m worried about what’s going to happen if we have bills that we pass and send over to the senate they don’t act on them as is their right as a body I don’t know why they do the things they do but I am concerned about loading up the budget with every provision we want to force them to accept in law. I’m just not sure that’s a sound practice that we want to get in to. [Speaker change] The question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Saine to the House committee substitute number two for senate bill 744. All in favor vote aye all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 75 having voted in the affirmative and 41 in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Glazier is the gentleman prepared to ...Representative Glazier’s amendment is now properly before us. The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment that is AMKE-102, is that correct Representative Glazier? [Speaker change] Yes Mr. Speaker it’s just coming on screen. [Speaker change] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker change] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker and members, this relates specifically to a prevision that’s in the special provisions. It is the rural charter school development pilot program and I think I can speak with some history here because this was provision for the $300,000 to this private organization Parents for Educational Freedom was proposed last year in the budget and it may surprise some of you but I actually voted for that and spoke to it in the education subcommittee. And agreed with it and here’s how it was said last year, and specifically the reason that I voted for it. It was told that it was going to be used as an assistencing grants to try and get more rural counties to have the wherewithal to create applications for charter schools. I thought that was a good thing still do. We are there needed because part of the issue about charters has been that they crop up in lots of urban areas but that places that may could use them the most we don’t have much charter development. I thought that was legitimate and whether it was going to the private group or not I thought that was at least enough to give it a shot. And I didn’t look at this provision when we were in subcommittee the other day because I assumed it was the same $300,000 because it didn’t pass the senate as I recall. We put it in and it didn’t pass. so I was fine with it. Until I read what it’s going for this year. If you look with me on the budget provision in section 8.31C last year this was sold to us as this is going to be money to help rural charters get charters and apply for charters to give more people an opportunity. It’s not going for that this year. PFNC shall require the grant recipients and here’s what it’s going for, it’s going to 12 charter schools, which is fine, in counties with currently with less than a 65% rate, but if you look at the criteria the only people who can grants are those that have already been approved by the state board to operate the charter. This isn’t going any longer for the purpose it was set out for, which was to help get more people to apply for charters and have better applications in communities that might not have had the wherewithal to really put together a good charter application. Now it’s not going for that at all. Now it’s going to a select set of charters that have already been granted for what reasons the provision doesn’t say with no criteria about how this private group is to grant the grants. Look at the provision there is nothing

Anything in there about the criteria that they will issue. This private group will issue 12 grants, but what selection material? We don't know. We get on DPI appropriately all the time because we don't have supervision over what they're doing, who they're granting to, that it could be political grants. We've put nothing in here. Well, that didn't bother me when we were doing it to get charters. It bothers me a lot about a private group selecting what charters are going to get state money through their organization with no criteria. I think that's just fundamentally wrong, and I take you back to a criticism the majority legitimately had on the Hatney plan years ago that created a 13 million dollar fund for after school and school improvement programs, and at-risk students. The first year that came out, a legitimate criticism was we didn't have sufficient oversight or criteria. We put in pages, pages, in the next couple budgets of criteria and supervision because we didn't want it being abused, and that was legitimately done at the result of the argument. Here, we put nothing in, and we've changed the total purpose they're seeking the money for. That is fundamentally wrong, and I'm transferring it for now in this budget provision to what's an open category where we have a huge deficit and we've cut repeatedly and that is school supplies, because I would rather schools get the money for children and supplies than not know where any of it's going for a purpose that was completely different than how it was originally set out, and I ask for your support on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen was recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, this concern that my friend Representative Glazier has raised is not something that I think as he acknowledged, he had discussed with us, I actually agree with him that the intent was that this is entirely to be used in trying to develop new charter schools where they don't exist in counties that would have the difficulty with our assistance in putting together an application. Taking Representative Glazier's word that he was for this before, and I hope would be for it with that change, I would ask the house to defeat the amendment that he's offering, or maybe Representative Glazier might consider withdrawing it or displacing it. Representative Stam is already working on amendment to address the concern to try to come up with language that would hopefully say something along the lines of assisting those who are in the process of applying or intend to or desire to. We'll be glad to work with Representative Glazier to try to hopefully have language that we can all agree serves that purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell, if the chair will, if the gentlemen will indulge the chair, understands that Representative Stam may be sending forth a perfecting amendment that may address the concern. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, if I might speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would temporarily displace the amendment in the hope as opposed to maybe the easiest is to instead of perfecting to ?? the amendment that does what they're trying to do, and I'd be glad to do that if we're able to reach an agreement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, we've displaced it once, why not again? We'll displace the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll move now. Representative Earl, is the lady ready to take up her amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I wish to withdraw my amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady's amendment will be withdrawn. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham, is the lady ready to send forward her amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham is recognized to send forth an amendment, the ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This amendment allows the department of cultural resources not to allocate a grant to municipal or single county library from the aid to public library's funds that exceeds 475,000. The original cap was 400,000, so by doing this it will not impact the wake or the ?? libraries as much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham, the chair understands that maybe we've worked out a different ammendment, so I want to make sure the proper amendment is before us. It's the understanding of the chair that the lady wishes to withdraw the amendment ALG-67 and send forth the amendment ALG-69. Does that...

The members intent? [SPEAKER CHANGE] No the last amendment that I put in was 67 where we raised the cap, withdraw the one before that one. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The house be at ease. If the lady will approach the dais we can clear up the appropriate amendment that needs to be withdrawn. Representative Cunningham the Chair will confirm again. The Chair believes that the lady does wish to withdraw amendment ALG-67. [SPEAKER CHANGE] That’s correct. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The amendment is hereby withdrawn. The lady is recognized to send forth amendment ALG-69. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Cunningham moves to amend the bill on page 197, lines 47-51 by deleting those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker the numbers are crossed up so I am not ready. Let me come back and correct the numbers, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The amendment will be temporarily displaced. Representative Cleveland is recognized to send forth amendment ALH-93. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Cleveland moves to amend the bill on page 75, lines 45 and 46 by inserting between those lines the following. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen for those of you who have been here for a while, this is a familiar amendment. We’ve passed it out of the house twice, maybe three times but I know at least twice. This amendment will repeal the board of governors authority to give in-state tuition to out of state and out of country students from the various and sundry foundations that fund students to go to our universities. We presently have some 1,300 of these students in our universities and these students being treated as in-state students mean that 1,300 seats that belong to North Carolinians are being filled by out of state and out of country students. I constantly hear the argument that this brings in the brightest people in the world to our universities and it may do that and I have no problem with that however I do have a problem our rate payers subsidizing foundations to bring in these brightest people. The foundations have sufficient funds, most of them do I imagine, I can’t speak for all of them. Most of them have sufficient funds to cover the cost of these students that they wish to sponsor and they should be the one spaying the freight for these students, not the rate payer of North Carolina. We shouldn’t be subsidizing people from Brazil, from the United Kingdom, from Malaysia, not Malaysia Morocco, from Canada, from Nigeria, from Vietnam. We should not be subsidizing those students. I hope I have your support. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Jeter please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’m opposed to this amendment in it’s totality. A little bit of history, we argued this policy in the house of education last year and it failed in the house of education committee so it didn’t get past house of education, didn’t make it in the floor so we’re going to stick it in the budget this year. Here’s the problem, and I’m not..

Going to sit here and deny that there are some cases where this makes sense, but we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Let me give you a prime example. Let’s take the Levine Scholarship at UNC Charlotte. Levine Scholarship is put out by a private foundation, the Levine family, one of the most philanthropic families in the Charlotte area. They have a scholarship that funds anywhere from 15 to 16 students, it’s 15 or 16, that scholarship mandates that 4 to 5 must be out of state. Currently those 4 to 5 out of state tuitions get in state tuition. That’s part of the process and that’s what Representative Cleveland is trying to kill. The problem you get is, the Levine Scholarship since it’s their money, gets to make their rules. And what happens if this passes, is there are 8 North Carolina students at UNC Charlotte that will not get a scholarship. You are not hurting the 5 people out of state. They’re coming anyway. It’s a mandated part of the funds. Who you are hurting is the people of North Carolina who are no longer going to be eligible for the 248 thousand dollars in scholarships because of this vote. We go to the Moorehead Caine, you go to the Park Scholarship, they’re all over the place. These aren’t state funded scholarship programs. These are independent philanthropic scholarship programs that will take money, or take students’ opportunity, North Carolina students’ opportunity away from attending our UNC system, if we pass this amendment. I urge you to defeat it as we did in House Education last year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question for Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Cleveland, you didn’t give us the names of the scholarships. Could you do that? We’ve got a lot of new people here you mentioned a sundry, but what can you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you asking? Mr. Speaker? Are you asking who the groups are that give the scholarships? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you’ll bear with me, I have, I thought I had, we have Chancellor Scholars, Wilson Scholars, Park Scholarships, Moorehead Caine, Robertson Davis United World, Thomas Wolfe, Keenan Music, Levine Scholars, Ground Scholars, and that’s about all I have on my list. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Saine, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just real quick, I’m opposed to the amendment for this very reason. And if you’ve attended one of our public universities in North Carolina, you know that students from other places bring value added to our students. Students from North Carolina learn a lot from folks from other places. It enhances their educational experience. I ask that you vote against the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the amendment, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, and I appreciate Representative Cleveland and I have had this debate many times. There used to be two sets of out of state. One was academic and one was athletic. He and I were in much agreement and eventually actually in 2009 or 10, we got rid of the athletic ones, because I thought that was an inappropriate use and I think a majority of this body did. But the academic scholarships are a different story for a couple of reasons. One, this affects as he said 11 campuses. On all 11 campuses it’s hundreds, three or four hundred total, maybe 450 actually, students involved. The two important points, or three important points I would say. Number one, not only what Representative Jeter eloquently said that a number of these scholarships have mandated specifics as to the number of out of state they can have, which then supply an inordinate number of in state students with their scholarship money and saves the state an enormous amount of expense because they’re funded through that scholarship. Second, listening to the bodies debate over the years, these scholarships have also tried and Moorehead is a classic example last year, they added 10 additional North Carolina students to the scholarship rolls. By having the state support to reduce the out of state to in state, it allow

a lot more money to be available then to in-state students to get the scholarships. If we take this away, we’re not just hurting the out of state not getting it, we not just keeping those globally competitive students from being here and staying here, who we are really hurting is North Carolina students. Who otherwise might not be going to Carolina, or Chapel, or to State or to Charlotte or to Winston Salem State and all the campuses that have these because there the ones who are going to loose out on the scholarship money. it’s really, in a sense counter intuitive, but it’s exactly right. By doing this the people we’re hurting the most are the in-state students who have the scholarship. I don’t think that would be worth it. For the money we’re getting from these scholarships, it is saving us far, far more. And I would really encourage the defeat of this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Horn, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Speaker. Ladies and gentleman, I think the case has been well made. And, at the risk of and rather, to ensure that I don’t say what’s all ready been said, I will say that the ed. chairs have reviewed this policy and this program. We’ve debated it in Committee. It’s been debated, as you’ve heard, several years in education as well as in appropriations. And I urge you strongly, on behalf of all the chairs, to oppose the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bryan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman’s recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Speaker. I really need to reiterate Representative Horn’s point. Don’t want to say what’s all ready been said. But as someone who has concern for our obligations for our in-state students, I do think Representative Glazier appropriately put it that we have, at the end of the day, scholarships are one big pot of money. And if you lower this, you lower the pot of money, these out of state scholarships are not going away. And so it actually end up hurting the scholarship money we have for in-state students. So I would urge you to vote against the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak a second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Speaker. I appreciate all the arguments against my amendment. However, I have a problem with my tax payers supporting foundations who have ample funds to cover the cost of any student they want to send to our universities. I think your arguments are fallacious, and I did not buy into them. If a organization requires five out of state or out of country students and they’re going to have eight in-state students, then that organization should pay the fee. Not the tax payer of North Carolina. The idea that we need these people to better our state or better our universities, I don’t think is true either. We are taking seats away from North Carolina students that want to go to universities. We have give or take around thirteen hundred seats in the universities that belong to North Carolina students. And our rate payers are subsidizing to make these seats to make sure that our North Carolina students don’t get them. That’s wrong. I don’t care how you try to cut it, that’s wrong. I would hope that you will support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insko, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, these scholarships are historic and many of them were funded by very generous private philanthropists who cared about the university and the future of the state. And I think that we’re honoring a tradition by having the in-state tuition. It let’s us spread the money over more years and support more students. These students that come in are very bright. They stay in North Carolina. Many of them stay in North Carolina, start businesses here and make a real contribution.

So I hope you’ll vote against the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Cleveland to the House Committee Substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 744. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 30 having voted in the affirmative and 86 negative. The amendment fails. Representative Lambeth is recognized to send forth an amendment. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lambeth moves to amend the bill on page 91, line 42 by inserting a new section after the line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment serves a new section that transfers the summer food service program to the department of public instruction from the department of health and human services. This amendment is supported by the HHS chairs and the education chairs. The program is 100% federally funded and there’s no impact on the state funds. The reason for the change is simply to make this a much more streamlined administratively ease in handling this program. I commit it to your approval. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just want to confirm and join with my colleagues on HHS that the education chair support this. It has no financial impact whatsoever. We believe actually it will be more efficient to handle it this way and there are no state funds involved at all. So I recommend the amendment to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Lambeth for the House Committee Substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 744. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 115 voting affirmative and none negative, the amendment passes. Representative Cunningham, is the lady prepared to take up the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment is now properly before us. The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. What this amendment does is raises the cap from $400 to 475,000 for the library grants and by doing that it lessens the impact on Mecklenburg and Wake County and it also spreads out the rest of the reduction to all the libraries so it’s more equitable so that it’s only about a 1% cut that is spread out throughout all the libraries in the state, from the other side of the aisle for working with me. And I appreciate your support for the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Horne, please state your purpose. Representative Cleveland, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The general government appropriations chairs have no objections to this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Cunningham to the House Committee Substitute number 2 for House Bill 944. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 114 having voted in the affirmative, 2 in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Mobley is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mobley moves to amend the bill on page 75, lines 45 46 by inserting between those lines the following. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I’ve finally gotten the nerve after these years of presenting something to this body. This amendment

Increases the budget for UNC need based financial program, aid program, by five million dollars. This would take the current amount from 125 to 130. Funds, by funding this increase in the management flexibility reduction by five million dollars. The management flex cut is currently 19 million, 19.8 million. This would increase the budget cut to 24.8 million. The five million equals less than 0.2 percent. That's 0.2 percent of the UNC budget. This amendment would give 2.5 million for need based aid at Elizabeth City State University, and that is my alma mater, and you've heard that over the past few weeks what the attempt was. Last fiscal year, the UNC need budget for need based grant program served 1,629 students at Elizabeth City, using a total of 2.2 million. The average award was about 1,350 dollars per student. This amendment would more than double the funding for students at Elizabeth City from this program. I urge you to support this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, please speak on your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen is recognized to debate he amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would urge my colleagues to vote "No" on the amendment. If there is the need that representative Mobley states here it would be certainly appropriate for the board of governors to make that decision, and to allocate additional moneys to these schools or to other schools, but we have a board of governors for a reason. Taking money, putting more of a burden of a cut on the board of governors and giving them less flexibility in how they spend their money I believe is really a mistake, and again, this is in some ways a precedent issue here. I just don't think we ought to go down this road, because once we start down here and are making these sorts of decisions about how we're going to send financial aid to one school and not to another school, we put ourselves in a very, very difficult position. I urge my colleagues to vote "No" on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mcshaw, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen was recognize to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the house, a few moments back, before we took the recess, Representative Hanes made an impassioned plea aimed particularly at minority community, along with Representative Brown. I noticed the applause that wasn't aloud supporting what they were saying. Here you have an opportunity to really express your wishes, and I say that because, understand, Elizabeth City State University was put on the chopping block by our friends across the hall. There was a lot of publicity on that, and that publicity caused a lot of harm. Even though they pulled it out, it caused a lot of harm to that school in terms of recruiting students, in terms of recruiting faculty. One of the things they said is that "The student enrollment had dropped off." Well, if you use this two and a half million dollars, it can increase that student enrollment. Elizabeth City is a very significant university in the system, and I don't mind telling you that I had a client, speaking of ladies and gentlemen, that gave, and even in spite of that, had came out and gave a half a million dollars to an endowed scholarship in Elizabeth City State University. Now, it is a viable institution, and it ought to remain that way. The other two and a half million in there is for the other historically black colleges and universities in order to get more students in there, and it affects the minority of the community.

Like I said, since we heard what you did from impassioned please by Representative Heinz and Representative Brandon, this is your opportunity to really express your feelings about that and particularly the minority community. But I simply express to you the fact that you live in the city state university, it is the third most viable economic engine in that region. And to equate it in a position that they are in right now, it was certainly attainable. And I know that the board of governors, now, come on, folks, face it. Y'all have changed the board of governors, basically, all the way around. So we don't know what that board of governors is gonna do. We don't have a much minority representation on that board of governors as we've had in the past. And so we just don't know, it's up to us and this body, to maintain those institutions and I ask that you support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair would take issue with one comment made by the gentleman from Durham. The chair gobble down the applause as I have done in every incident when that occurred over the last three and half years. Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has recognize to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, I can't add a whole lot to it. I've spent 40 years on the camp for 7 HPCU, I've been at college, I did my graduate and undergraduate work in North Carolina NTC State University. I've been on every HPCU campus in the state of North Carolina. Lead the North Carolina legislative black caucus foundation and raise in scholarship. We appreciate all the support that you've given us to help keep students in school and to make education accessible and affordable. We talked a lot tonight about opportunity. So here's your opportunity to help students who need that opportunity. Some of these students, a lot of these students are from North Carolina, but all of these students, as we look at the attendance and the financial status of many of our students who attend HPCUs, all of them are in dire need of help. Many of them are first generation college students as I was. And so I think we have a responsibility as well to help these students. They are trying to help themselves by getting a college education. That is the way for young people to move up and ahead, and too many of them, if they are not from North Carolina will remain here as I did, become a productive citizen and tax payers. But we do know, and I have to share Representative Michelle's concern about our board of governors. It is not diverse anymore. And I think we also have to have people who know about these schools, because either they have attended them or they've been on those campuses, they have relatives but they know something internally and intrinsically about how they work and the needs of those students, and I guess, you can't teach want you don't know. But, it is really imperative that we not only help our students and these colleges and universities to survive but they must thrive. And here's an opportunity that we have to create opportunity, and maybe we can get Representative Haines to get up and give another passionate speech about the opportunity for these young people who are attending this college. It's a beautiful campus. They've got great programs there. But they simply need some help and some assistance, and this is the way for us to do that. If we say we care about diversity, if we say we care about students and what happens to them, because what happens to them will enable our state to be maintained and to grow. So I would urge you to support this amendment. It's certainly very favor. I mean, we got a lot of things in this budget that are giving our people and other entities and opportunity, and these young people need it. I would encourage your support of this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, I rise to request that you vote no on this amendment, largely for the reasons that Chairman McGrady put forward, that I also want to just expand a little bit on some of the discussion that we've had so far on this amendment. I think

...think. From my discussions with members of the board of governors. They are very well aware of the situation at Elizabeth City State University. Everyone is concerned about the health of that institution. At least people that I talk to quite often for some time. I think there are efforts underway to resolve a number of the issues at Elizabeth City State. And to make sure that, that can be a very viable institution for many years to come. And I think obviously the point is well made about the impact on the economy of the Northeast that Elizabeth City State has. But I want folks to understand something, um, we on the republican side have had to ask for restraint from some of our members. I have had to restrain myself in certain ways. When the thought comes to mind let's have more restrictions on what the board of governors can and can't do. We have been moving in a direction over the last several years and certainly this year to give the board of governors the opportunity to actually implement reforms and modernize things in our university system, and ensure that in future generations we will have the type of university system that we want in this state we have a tremendous board. And I'm not saying that in relation to any of the past boards, but I can say for this board, it is one of the most accomplished boards of governors that I have ever seen. The collection of individuals. They are very accomplished, they are very serious, they are very dedicated. And I think they take very seriously the issues that have been raised in Elizabeth City State and all of the 16 university campuses as well as the schools of math and science and other responsibilities that we have. So, I believe that we need to not include this amendment. To feed this amendment and give them the opportunity don't, let's not shackle them let's give them the opportunity to do the work that they need to do as a board of governors and I think we will be- I think all of us in this chamber will be very pleased with the results and be able to strongly support them moving forward. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker to ask to be excused from deliberations and voting pursuant to will 24.1A [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be excused representative Charles Graham please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to stand up. I don't want to be repetitive. I want to support this amendment if you'll look on line 18 of the amendment we are talking about North Carolina's only historical American Indian universities which is UNC,P and in that part of the state we have many Native American students or American Indian students, however you want to recognize the American Indians in this state, that would love to attend that university. However, due to financial circumstances. Due to their lack of support within the family they are unable to do that. This is another opportunity grant at the highest level, as we say in our community we would love to have your support and appreciate everything you do. This is a wonderful opportunity to do something good for the American Indian population as well as the other universities mentioned in this amendment. Thank you, and I encourage your vote of support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ryan Brown please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I rise in support of the amendment. I do agree with Chairman Dollar regarding the outstanding, and very accomplished board of governors that we currently have. And I do think that they will make fantastic decisions moving forward. I also agree that they need maximum flexibility. But in this case, when we look at universities like Elizabeth City State, and you look at their decreased enrollment. Ladies and gentlemen, all you have to do is go to Elizabeth City, look at the area, look at the region. Their decreased enrollment has nothing to do with whether kids want to go to college and better their lives. It has to do with what they have in terms of resources. Go to Elizabeth City State. If you haven't been there, please do it. It is a beautiful campus in a beautiful city. With outstanding kids who could and would...

All the resources that is there, it could be provided to them to help lift them out of the current situation that they are in and better that northeastern portion of our state. I urge you to support this amendment so that we can try to help continue moving Universities like Elizabeth City State forward and continue and try to move the State forward. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pierce, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. Mr. Speaker, Ladies and gentlemen, I rise this afternoon to support this amendment for a couple of reasons. You spent a lot of [wuss] in the chamber, in the general assembly of the last two sessions. We've heard about consolidating and I think, I heard representative dollar talk about some things, how good a job people are doing but there was some [wuss] a couple of years ago about consolidation. I think that's still in demand of some folks so we need to consider that and what happened just a few weeks ago I think that you'll remember that legislative black caucus had a press conference to lay us out against the proposal that was on the table in dealing with Elizabeth City. But with that proposal on the table, what you end up doing was you put a nail in the coffin. Because of what happened students who were thinking about going to Elizabeth City, you put something in their minds they can then believe that maybe for a year or two the school could close down. So, I think we set a dangerous precedent for Elizabeth City by doing that. Black Universities have been underfunded for years and I think we all know that and they face a very difficult time and we've got a lot of issues that we definitely need to deal with but I think we're setting a dangerous precedent dealing with Elizabeth City because I think that the [competition] is still gonna be out there. I think the board of governors still have a mind to find some way somehow to close that University down. We don't need to run from it, we don't need to hide from it. I believe they're still talking about it while they're drinking ice water in back rooms, they are still talking about that. Why do you say that representative Pierce? Because we've been talking about it for two sessions; each time we would beat it back but I still think the reality is on the table to try to find a way. We're pulling programs, we're pulling curriculum, I remember that. Keep right on pulling that and eventually students would not want to go to that University. So, Representative Mobley has a good proposal on the table. And you're right. I think when I stand and speak, people say well he's preaching. What's in like everybody else who deny who don't have a life has been preaching so, I guess I need to preach. But I think we really need to take a hard look at this and let's be fair to this university. You have dug a hole for this university in the last two sessions. Ladies and gentlemen, you did that. You have sent a negative signal across this state and to surrounding areas. Students who would consider going there, you sent the wrong signal. So we're asking tonight, I agree with my colleagues, we need to do the right thing. It's not gonna hurt the budget. This will help them recruit, this will help them sustain programs already at that University. Let's give them a chance. I ask you to vote yes on this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and gentlemen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak briefly on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the house, for many years I've represented in my district, the North Carolina central University and we're proud and ?? of the work that NCCU has done for our community and for the state and for the nation. The reason I'm speaking to support the amendment is because the amendment is about financial assistance for students and I learned a few years ago in research and in conversation at NCCU some realities about income of the families at the HPCUs of our state and Pembroke State vs. UNC Chapel Hill and NC State and the reality is this that for the five HPCUs, the average family income is 30,000 dollars. At NC State and at UNC Chapel Hill, the average family income is 90,000 dollars. It's obvious then that the young people who are attending these schools badly need financial assistance and that to me is enough reason for us to make a special step, an unusual step that ?? to provide assistance for young people.

Families that earn a third of what students’ parents do at Carolina and state. I urge you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Baskerville please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment. We’ve talked a lot about education today, K-12. This bill deals with a lifetime of learning, continued education across a lifespan of young folks that might not have been able to get into school in other places have an opportunity to attend Elizabeth State City University, I know this from first hand experience with members of my family, and it is an economic driver in that region and let’s give some of these young folks an opportunity that want to go to school. These aren’t folks that are hanging out in the streets or getting into trouble or doing bad things, these are folks that can’t afford to go. Elizabeth City is providing them an opportunity to get a four year degree and I think we need to support that. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Brandon please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do rise to support the amendment. I went to an HBCU. I will let you know that one of the things that I notice is everybody has talked about the disadvantages that students have at the HBCUs but one of the things that I noticed about HBCUs here is that we have a disadvantage is that we did not have the same type of influence. I see that the UNC, Chapel Hill, and NC State lobbyists here are making sure that they are getting funding in all different types of ways. We’ve seen bills come through here that NC State engineering program is somehow better than UNC’s engineering program and they deserve more funding than us. This is something that has been going on in this chamber for a long time. I think that we can rectify some of that by number one understanding that the same things Representative Brown and other folks have talked about that there are disadvantages. People do not go to college on the same level, $30,000 and $90,000 is a tremendous difference and it’s also a difference in mindset, but just in the matter of being here, just witnessing how other universities know how to manipulate the system better than some of the HBCUs do that alone gives you a tremendous amount of more coverage and more money that HBCUs just simply do not get. This is a small drop in the budget and I think that we should support this amendment because Elizabeth City, not only Elizabeth City but UNC Pembroke and other HBCUs and schools of color definitely need a little additional support and even with this support that we would have we would still probably be 40-50% behind the rest of the universities in terms of funding, even with that support. Just think about that. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Terry please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I have listened to the various opinions about this and I stand in support of this amendment as a person who has ten years of experience working in an HBCU some years back, but one of the things that I want to bring up here is the opportunity, and I’ve heard the word opportunity used, to allow us to help Elizabeth City State University reach the potential that it has, particularly as an economic engine for that region of the state. I have heard and I have been in the committee sessions where our department of commerce has established prosperity zones and from my perspective that northeastern corridor of the state of North Carolina is an excellent place for us to begin the investment to allow Elizabeth City to be a part of the prosperity zone for that region that some of our other universities, particularly the flagships have always and have always been known to help with the public private partnerships that help us with entrepreneurship and job development and all of that. I understand that there’s a fabulous aviation program there that has made the state very proud.

And considering the size of this budget and all of the things that are done, I’m new so I cannot possibly understand everything but I do know within my judgment and the judgment of most people, $5 million here in an area that is in desperate need of something to help it understand what it’s endless possibilities may be, particularly for a prosperity zone in the northeastern section of North Carolina, I cannot understand why you would not be in favor of that. I recommend and support and hope you will find, just a place in your heart to understand that we too would like to be able to prosper. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Blackwell please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker I want to again ask the house to reject this particular amendment. It really isn’t in my judgment about whether you want to try do something to indicate your support for Elizabeth City State or any other particular institution. Keep in mind what this amendment would do if adopted. It doesn’t create any new programs at Elizabeth City, it doesn’t build anything. What it does is provide more scholarship money that is specifically designated for students going there, but there’s no evidence that anybody has presented to us in subcommittee and certainly not on the floor today that there is a shortage of funds available to needy students desiring to attend Elizabeth City State or any other school that would be benefited by this amendment. Currently there’s over $300 million available.. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Pierce please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Ask the member a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Blackwell thank you for your remarks there but you made a part that it’s not building anything, I think it’s building students and it’s building people to go out to do things in our state. Let me ask you a question, do you not believe it’s building people? Buildings are not always important, sometimes it’s more important to be a student and to suggest that students don’t have financial problems, that’s just not true. Do you think that’s true, that students don’t have financial problems? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I believe if I understand your question that I agree that any individual obtaining a college education is building for the future and improving their prospects, improving the prospects for the family that they have or may have, and that’s a good thing. I’m trying to make a distinction though that what this bill would do is designate specific funds for scholarships and the university already has over $300 million that will be distributed in the coming school year to students on the base of need and there’s been no demonstration by anybody here on the floor and certainly not in the committee that considered this legislation that there is an unmet need at Elizabeth City or at any other particular school. Moreover, this would take $5 million from the university system in the form of an increased flex cut which they would then have to distribute back out to the universities which would mean Elizabeth City in order to get this extra money for students that may not need it, would have to maybe distribute a cut to that same university in order to come up with the $5 million. Moreover, there is nothing with the present flexibility that the board of governors has to prevent them from saying well if they’re going to make a special provision for Elizabeth City State, we’ll push some more money into other places since they’ve already gotten theirs from the legislature. This just isn’t the way we ought to do it, if we want to do something special for Elizabeth City we ought to discuss it in the long session and we ought to decide what it is and then we can vote on it but this is not the way to vote on it in my opinion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Another question for the member. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGE] And Representative Blackwell the gentleman still has the floor, you’re yielding to a question at the end of the question you can either sit down or continue your debate..

I will yield if I have the floor still. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Blackwell, you - I'm just going to make a point, then the question - you're a very knowledgeable person. I've enjoyed the time we fellow shipped here today so, but did you not believe, of all the schools in the system - do you not believe, of all the schools in the system that Elizabeth City is suffering at this point? From all that we've heard and all that we've stood on the floor and talked about 35 minutes, it's obvious that Elizabeth City has a problem and we need to rectify it today in this General Assembly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With due respect to my colleagues here on the floor, I understand that some claims and statements have been made to that effect and because of that I think it's certainly would be something that the Education Committees and the Appropriations Committee should look into, but this is not the place to decide that an extra 2.5 million for scholarships for students at Elizabeth City, whose needs for scholarships may already be met out of the 300 million dollars that the University is going to be able to loan out this year. I'm not sure that's going to help Elizabeth City. It allows some people to say they got it in there and it may look like we're doing something, but I'm suggesting to you that if your purpose is to support and build up a school that you think is in need of it. That this is not the way to go about doing it. I would encourage you to discuss this with the Education Committee and the Appropriations Committee and let's look at the facts and if in fact they have specific needs that we can meet to try to build them up then we can address it. I think this does it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up to the member. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell, time is of the essence for this University. There's no doubt about it ad I would hope that - you made a point, let's wait till next year. I don't think, we don't have the time to wait. I think the time is now while we can. We cannot wait and I would hope that my fellow friends on the other side would understand that. I just believe Mr. Speaker, I know I'm going a couple ways here, but if it was any other university - and I don't want to go a place that I don't, I don't want to go to a certain place with this - but it just makes me, it troubles me that for two sessions, this Elizabeth City has been proposed to be on the chopping block and here we are still talking about it and had not the Black Caucus raised their voice a couple weeks ago and that amendment would have gone through, I think we'd have had some problems. So that's were my problem is. That we're not being really genuine about what we're talking about tonight. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I'm gonna assume there was a question there and I'll respond in this way. In the last two sessions, to my knowledge there's been no discussion on the House Educations Appropriations subcommittee about consolidating, closing, or doing anything that I can think of that would be negative as it is directed to anyone or more, certainly not Elizabeth City State at the university level. So I really don't think it's been on the chopping block, except that maybe somebody in the other body is talking about it, but we haven't taken that up. But my final response to your comments and I hope I'm not being repetitive or redundant in saying this is, I don't think this amendment accomplishes anything to advance your purpose. We don't know that there's students that aren't going to be able to go to Elizabeth City State because they don't have scholarship money. What we do know is if this amendment passes is that the Board of Governors is going to have to distribute 5 million dollars in additional cuts and that some of those cuts, that might not otherwise go to Elizabeth City State, may well go there because they got to find the best places to go. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more just quick, Mr. Speaker. One more question and I will have it in the form of a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell, were you aware that 97.5% of the full time, undergraduates going to Elizabeth City receives financial aid and did you realize that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know that exact number. I would have assumed that it was a high percentage. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm gonna be fair to what I said. This is the end of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As to the amendment I move the previous question.

Representative Moore has moved the previous question. The motion is not debatable. Question before the house is the motion to move the previous question on the Mobley amendment. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 64 have vote in the affirmative and 48 in the negative the motion passes, now we ate back on the bill about roll 3 minutes to be allocated to each side, representative Hall may choose the speaker to delicate the comments. Representative Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker I will accept the three minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a period not to exceed 3 minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman we had a good discussion and the reason we have these budget sessions obviously is because this is the place we do business. So when I just hear for a vacation we here because we here to do business tonight and we have changed this process that we don't go through the self-committees and give proper disclosure and opportunity for everyone to get their proposals in and get them fairly heard. So we have pushed the budget to now to become a document where we have these kind of decisions made in big appropriations meet right before hand and yes we do better than the Senate but that's a pretty low bar and then we do it here than we do it here on the floor. Now I am not gonna preach because I don't have a license. I can get one do I rest assure but let me tell you this because I did getter earlier tonight how important it is to be consistent and we are taking about supporting an institution that's the third largest economic dreary in the eastern region of the state, we know they need help out there period, no question no dispute on that but I want to tell you about consistency, those of you know in darn we got a school of math and science so everybody knows about it right? Party university system, everybody knows about school of science and math in darn. Well we don't do things like this but in yesterday in appropriations everybody was dead no one knows what we did. We took 5 million dollars and say it hey we don't have the studies we need another school of math and science in the university system but we took 5 million dollars and provided plan and money we took 1.2 million in ferns to be used by board of governor's university directed them to plan for another 800 thousand to sight it and then finally directed them to distributor 1 million 200 thousand in the section not be spend for any purpose other than just advance planning. So we create a whole school, we create a whole duplicative school in the region of the state because somebody either is from that district or they just got the power to do it and it is in your budget, it's in your budget not to pass inappropriations yesterday but tonight when there is time try to save 4-5 schools and at the moment after we damaged their public reputation and their ability to function I am getting notes and their ability to function we decide this is not the place to do it and now no such objections were raised yesterday in appropriations nobody see this is not the place to create a whole new school in the university system. Board of governor is gonna ask for it, scolds of science and math in darn didn't say we need help we got too many students we need you to build another campus. There is no study that recommended it. So when we talk about consistency we talk about fairness, we talk about what we would be doing and when and where we should be doing it then this consistency issue comes in again and I gotta note here lemme see, alright I am not gonna repeat what's been said already about the impact but yes I am about what happened with the Senate last year proposing the close of this ?? state university and then coming up again this year in the discussion, thank you very much for your vote we consistent and support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen just as a point of clarification.

Fact and in calling the previous question on an amendment, there is no obligation to provide the three minutes. The Chair used his discretion to do that. The question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Mobley, for the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 744. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [LONG PAUSE] The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 49 having voted in the affirmative and 66 in the negative, the amendment fails. Representative Glazier, the Chair understands that the gentleman wishes to withdraw amendment AMK-102? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct, Mr. Speaker. There will be a different amendment coming. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam is recognized to send forth that amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam moves to amend the bill on page 39, lines 50 and 51, by deleting those lines and therefore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks, Mr. Speaker. We were sort of like ships passing in the night, not really understanding what was intended. This limits the grants before school opens, the charter school opens, but allows it to also be used before the charter is granted. But mainly it’ll be used for the planning year which is between those two events. I move adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to Representative Stam’s amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And although this is a bit broader than it was last year, I think it’s limited in this way. It’s still going to help charters be developed in rural counties. It is only for that purpose, and then to assist them as they’re planning to open. It is not the ones that they’ve assisted in getting the grant. They are not, it cannot be used for operations. It cannot be used to help the charter once it’s operating. There’s going to be no distinction. So this is I think still essentially tied to its purpose, albeit a touch broader. It is my hope that over the course of the interim, that there’s some criteria that continues to be put for purposes of accountability. But I think this is back to its original purpose and would urge adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Stam to House Committee Substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 744. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 114 having voted in the affirmative, 2 in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Davis is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis moves to amend the bill on page 279, line 37 by added immediately after the line the following language to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the House. The present film incentive program in North Carolina is set to expire at the end of this year. In the spirit of further consensus, I would like to offer this amendment not only to keep the film industry viable in North Carolina but also to allow the film incentive issue to proceed for further discussion between the House and the Senate. Mr. Speaker, Representative Ruth Samuelson and I worked together on this amendment and I request that you recognize her to explain it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, basically what this amendment does is convert the film credit into a grant program. You may be familiar with that. As you know simplifying our tax code so it helps all people who want to create jobs do so in North Carolina is one of our objectives. In doing that for the film industry as a grant program through the division of commerce will be very helpful. Ultimately this will allow the secretary of commerce to negotiate and prioritize film projects based on jobs created in North Carolina, infrastructure improvements in capital investment, and economic impact. There are several things in it. It will allow her, her or him, in the future

Prioritize grants based on an economic impact analysis that will be conducted by the Labor and Economic Development Division. It will require production companies to offer marketing opportunities in promotional value for North Carolina for things like our logo and call-outs. And it will also allow the Secretary to enter into 3-year contracts with a sunset in 2020, and this is there to help provide the needed certainty that any business needs when they're going to have a grant. And then it requires a full audit before the grant is ever paid. The way we did this for the budget is it only appropriates five dollars in Fiscal Year 2014-2015 to put the program on the table for negotiations in the conference process. If you all have been following the news around the country, these film credits and film programs have been up and down all over the country, and so this will give us a chance to look at it and figure out within our budget constraints in working with the Senate to figure out what is the appropriate amount to put in the budget for this year. Our intent is to keep North Carolina competitive, to retain the jobs and capital investment we have now, and create new opportunities in this expanding job sector. I encourage your support. [Speaker Changes] Representative Carney, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To speak on the amendment. [Speaker Changes] The Lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker Changes] Ladies and Gentlemen of the House that just rised to support the amendment, I'm sorry that we didn't have -- we weren't able to keep in place what we currently have for the film industry, but I will hold this up to remind you of the jobs that are created in this State by the film industry. If you have not been to visit a set, I encourage you to go do it. But if you go on a set, you're gonna meet people that are your neighbors. They're not people from out-of-state, these are people that over the last 20-some years in North Carolina, if not longer, they have grown this industry, and it is continuing to grow. I know some of you have received a bunch of e-mails. I keep in constantly receiving emails, and have been for the last 2 years, when we've had this every year come up, "Are we going to extend the credit-- the deadline for the credit?". Well, the sunset, excuse me. Representative Danny McComas, from Wilmington, for years stood up here and defended this credit, fought for it, and kept it going. And I applaud the Representatives to night that have stood up and put something forward for us to keep talking. You've heard me say that, and I'm gonna keep reminding us of that. This is an industry, and again, it creates jobs. Go talk to welders who have jobs today because of the film industry. Talk to the printing companies, who during the recession -- there's a guy in Charlotte that has been across the state promoting this incentive -- but just promoting the fact that the film industry does promote jobs. Talk to him about during the recession, how he was able to keep his business afloat from the industry. From a TV show that was being filmed right in his area. I could go on and on with the stories, but I want you to have an opportunity to hear from these workers in North Carolina, people that are buying a home for the first time, young people. It is an industry that crosses all ages. Yeah, I'm passionate about it. I wanna get you passionate. I wanna get you excited about it, because it not only is about somebody standing in front of a camera, like we do up here -- we're all actors. It isn't all about that. It is beyond -- beyond those big-name peoples that don't live in North Carolina. It drill it down to our homegrown jobs in North Carolina. So I urge your support for this amendment, and let's keep the ball rolling. [Speaker Changes] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To offer in perfecting the amendment. [Speaker Changes] The Gentleman is recognized to enfort the amendment. The Clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] Representative Stam moves to amend the amendment number thirty-two on page two line three by deleting. [Speaker Changes] The Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the pending amendment, like current law, prohibits films that are obscene. You would not believe what something has to be to be obscene, and I'm not gonna tell you. But this amendment also...

Says we’re not going to send this five dollars on material that is harmful to minors. Now, if you think that’s an undefined term, it’s a whole page of definition and I’m not going to read it out because parts of it would gross you out. I have copies of it right here if you want to come back and get copies of it. But I assure you that you do not want that five dollars of tax money spent on materials harmful to minors. I move adoption of perfecting the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the perfecting amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would ask the House to support the amendment and I support it as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the amendment sent forth by Representative Stam, the perfecting amendment, to the amendment sent for by Representative Davis, for the House Committee Substitute number two for Senate Bill 744. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 110 having voted in the affirmative and 6 in the negative, the perfecting amendment passes. We’re now back on the amendment sent for by Representative Davis, as amended. Further discussion, further debate? Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth a perfecting amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley moves to amend the amendment number 32 on page 5, line 36 by inserting at the end of that line, the following language. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the House. I’m not really concerned about the five dollars, and I understand the purpose of why the bill is drafted as it is, but looking out in the future and if the Senate should decide that this is a good thing to do, I just want to be sure that we’re not moving money out of the P3 provisions and that’s what it says. That under no conditions, and I understand the state budget act, I’ve been here a lot of years. But that just restricts that money that it cannot be used for this purpose. And I would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d ask the House to support Representative Howard’s amendment and I do as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins. The question before the House is the passage of the perfecting amendment to the amendment sent forth by Representative Davis, to the House Committee Substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 744. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 82 having voted in the affirmative, 34 in the negative. The perfecting amendment passes. We are now back on the main amendment as amended. Representative Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d ask the amendment sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, I just have a question. I’m trying to understand what’s on line 27, on page 1. It says that this money will not be used for grants of more than certain dollars. $5 million for feature length film. The next part is the one I’m a little concerned about. It says more than $5 million for a single episode of a television or video production. Does that mean that on a typical I think it’s maybe 13 episode or some are 9 episodes, some are 13 episodes a season, that we could be out for as much as $65 million for a single television production? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a follow up, then. Can you tell me what that means then? $5 million per episode. Is there a limit to how many episodes we’ll support? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’ll look at the next page, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. I don’t see it anywhere. That’s why I ask. Two episodes for $5 million.

Speaker Changes: Let us make a concluding statement we are not looking at ??, Speaker Changes: I think the gentlemen withdraws the question,the gentle men is recognized to debate the amid, Speaker Changes: That's the one of the thing i have feelings that's the conference one thing i like to conference to get tailed down make sure that we don't get unlimited exposure??, Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To debate the amid, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized to debate the amid, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr. speaker i have debated this subject before and Representative ?? i m going to say about the same thing but differently.In my opinion i dint like this approach yo start with my opinion was to extend the daylight we have six more years ?? and we confusing the issue but i would go along with whatever we can get we 'll take a half a low because you are talking about 4200 jobs is like imposing a ?? tax in another industry and sending under Georgia.And i make a ?? wars of and like Georgia makes an evil empire.And they were come up and here 4000 plus jobs ?? not quite as good.The producers the pane would studios are billing there James bond and harry potter folks in the ?? area fellow producers of dear movies ?? right next to screen Jim's.Which now scolding people in Wilmington ?? if we don't do something reasonable to keep his folks here.And the only study that have been done outside the ivory tower in rally and economic study.?? says we are getting a dollar 5 back for every dollar investing.They need to hurry for dealing out ?? also says were he is discovered so far i think he is very low ten dollars in the economy for every dollar spent and i think he has just scratch the survey and it is the only thing he have done so folks just thanks about what you doing if you don't do anything and if you don't do enough to stay in the running and Georgia is after us and i would say little bit of proud in North Carolina ?? but i learn north Carolina a lot more thank you, Speaker Changes: Representative Davis please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To speak on he bill of the amid, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill the second time, Speaker Changes: Thank you in response to the representative ?? comments well i would prefer to have the present film tax quite to continue and i wouldn't learned a lot about the process when i was in finance committee yesterday and i run to propose the amid and i would respect the process,but i also in the realistic and i realize there are not sufficient amount of votes in the pass of the house to film ?? to employ upon you to vote for this amid and supported cause the most important thing of this it will allow the ?? issue to proceed the conference so we have further discussion between the house and the senate so i would ask you to please support that purpose, Speaker Changes: The question before the house is the passage of the amid send forward by Representative Davis as amended house committee substitute no 2 for to send forth the bill 744 . All in favor vote aye.Now the clerk will open the vote .the clerk will record the machine to quote the vote.19 have voted in the affirmative and 26 in the negative and the amid passes, Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: I would like o be as recorded as voting no the Howard protecting amendment, Speaker Changes: The lady would recorded on voting no on the Howard amendment, Speaker Changes: Representative ?? is recognized to send forth the amid AMG-64 the ?? , Speaker Changes: Representative lose to amend the bill on page 78 line 21 by adding new section after that line to read ,

Recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, what this amendment will do, will be to extend a program that we put in place last year to fund the group homes that were housing the individuals who had last their PCS coverage due to changes in the rules and we said in that original language that the funding would end either on June 30th of this year or when the funds were fully expended and due to the beginning of a slow process, it’s not been completed yet and what we’re actually doing is just extending the ending language to June 30th of next year or when the funds are completely expended and I would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Avila to the House committee substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 744. All in favor, vote Aye. All oppose, vote No. The clerk will open the vote. All members will record. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 113 having voted in the affirmative, 1 in the negative; the amendment passes. Representative Avila is recognized to send forth amendment ATR-17. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila moves to amend the bill on page 106 line 15 by inserting after that line. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. What we’re trying to do here is to standardize an operation that consumes a lot of people’s time simply because one part – the authorization and billing uses a fiscal year and the tracking process uses a calendar year and there’s support for this from the department, the [LVMCOs] and the providers. I would ask for your acceptance of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Avila for the House committee substitute of Senate Bill 744. All in favor, vote Aye. All oppose, vote No. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 112 having voted in the affirmative, 2 in the negative; the amendment passes. Ladies and Gentlemen, that completes the consideration of all amendments. The Chair understands there may be one amendment offered on third reading by Representative Larry Hall. Therefore, we’re back on the bill as amended. Further discussion, further debate. Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. We’ve had a good number of amendments and I can appreciate the time that we spent on the amendments and the compilation of this document. By and large, I sincerely appreciate the many improvements that we’ve made in education particularly, I suppose, to what we received from the Senate. Our attempt to give teachers a decent raise is quite laudable and commendable. Our attempt to give state employees a raise, it’s commendable. However, the uncertainty of the stability of these raises gives me concern. Reliance on the lottery proceeds, the increasing lottery proceeds gives me a bit of heartburn. I wish we had a more stable source of revenue. They use our public school fund to fund vouchers for private education, greatly disturbs me. We.

Speaker: Have received passionate please that poor children cannot or will be deprived of a decent adequate education without those firms.if you would allows me a bit of personal testimony i would ?? you but that's just not true.You see I'm the sixth child of my seven children family to my parents my mother and my father.My mother was as stand hold mother.My dad received only fifth grade education and he worked as a laborer all his life.Never earning ten thousand dollars a year.But he felt like it was his responsibility to educate his children because he didn't get what.So he served a dual role so does a labor during a day and a farmer during the night.he said that was his responsibility.That day labor job would feed the family,that night job would send us to college with subsidies in the summer by working in tobacco fields and doing the night jobs in the after noon not the lot of time for leisure or just patience.The first six of us complete college and i would say that you would judge the quality of education that we were received the seventh my baby brother i think my dad was tired at that time and he just said his son just do whatever you want just go to military.But his rules were you are collage the, was which one that's the only question we had ,which college which stipulations you will not left anything because you are spending his money.?? but that's the just my day and the other thing that he was very very diligent on you will not receive any kind of hand out there will be no free lunch in his family you work and earn for everything you get,so we knew that we have to finish college.Again this budget i think in the education side will learn it's ?? not lot but some for else. i think we could ?? to other places.Insulation of a western magazine school with a no origin from anybody to do so again gives me concern.just a few tip bits of concern they are other than that the budget and the words of king of ?? when he was facing a parcel ?? would be that almost almost i could be persuaded to spot it but i think we could do better.Thank You, Speaker Changes: Mr.Speaker, Speaker Changes: Representative Bell please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To change of vote on Representative ?? last memo,that was a 80 or 70 version 3 to yes, Speaker Changes: Without objection so ordered, Speaker Changes: Thank you, Speaker Changes: Mr speaker, Speaker Changes: Representative Floyd please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: Inquire ?? Speaker Changes: Gentlemen make state his inquiry, Speaker Changes: This speaker would not allow when i was at the chamber he gave me 20 seconds so i respect my Representative where so wish to pass and remain neutral by.I would like that, Speaker Changes: Representative Floyd i think the speaker intend was that if you did not get the best of vote here within 20 seconds you could not stand up to request your vote to be count out if have not already voted you did not make a statement at that point about switching your vote if so if you are choose to do so, Speaker Changes: Follow, Speaker Changes: I believe that's why he allowed now member of the,

...authority to do that. [Speaker Changes] Follow up? [Speaker Changes] Follow up. [Speaker Changes] Yes sir? [Speaker Changes] I was understanding from my perspective, 20 seconds was totaled didn't make it a difference. I didn't make up my mind to cast a vote. [Speaker Changes] You are correct, you had to vote within that 20 seconds. [Speaker Changes] But I -- [Speaker Changes] And you did not, so therefore you're saying you cannot come up and request that you have your vote counted after the 20 seconds. [Speaker Changes] Follow up? [Speaker Changes] Gentleman may state his inquiry. [Speaker Changes] I was just wanting the policy to be fair across the board. Twenty seconds, and that's all. [Speaker Changes] Speaker Taylor ?? [Speaker Changes] State your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Just to be clear on the rule, when I was in the dais, the rule was because many members were stepping out of chamber delaying the vote, we were having to record the vote, the chair extended the time by 30% to 20 seconds, giving every member ample time to be at their seats to record a vote. The chair is allowed two votes to be changed: one from the minority, one from the majority, because they cast their votes within the 20 seconds. That is the rule. [Speaker Changes] Representative Leubke, could you please state your purpose? [Speaker Changes] Follow up, Mr. Chair? [Speaker Changes] Representative Floyd, in order to address the body, the gentleman needs to be standing per the rules, so if you will please stand before you try to address the body in order to follow the rules, that would be the appropriate thing to do. The gentleman is recognized to state his inquiry. [Speaker Changes] Follow up, Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Changes] You are recognized. [Speaker Changes] Thank you for allowing me to stand with these bad knees. My question is was the vote changed within the 20-second group? [Speaker Changes] Yes, they voted and are changing their votes. Representative Floyd, you were not in the chamber, and therefore could not request to have your vote added. Representative Leubke, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To speak on the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the House, in today's debate there were very many amendments, which I thought was coming from the Democratic side, from this side of the aisle, which were voted down. Without being specific, I really regret that, because I think all of them were amendments that would have improved this budget. I think the biggest issue that faces all of us in North Carolina is whether we're going to do a great deal, not just a bit, but a great deal, to move aside from 46th place in teacher pay. I think it was possible for this House to have done better than 5%. As it is, this House is gambling that the money will be there so that the 5% can be provided. But to gamble on the future, particularly the gamble with the Lottery, and also to say with the lottery, and many of my friends across the aisle who were here when we voted for the lottery remember that many of us thought, (and I was one who voted against the Lottery) many of us thought it was really wrong. Not just for reasons of morality for some, but for the fact that we were taking money disproportionally - it's clear as the day is long - that you are disproportionally taking money from people in the lower end of the economic scale. And we all knew that, we debated that, and it continues to be true, so it's somehow ironic that in the attempts to improve education in our state, the majority has chosen to use the Lottery, and encouraging people to play the Lottery so that there can be money for the 5%. Actually, I would say to you, there was money, clearly, money there that we could do better than 5%. But to do just 5% and rely on Lottery money seems to me a big big mistake, and I will not be supporting the bill. Thank you. [Speaker Changes] Representative Grier Martin, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Members, I was here nine years ago, also, when we passed the Lottery. That was my first term here in the General Assembly. And I had many objections to the Lottery. I personally believe that gambling is immoral and wrong, and I certainly believe it's wrong for the State of North Carolina to be...

Speaker: Particularly on the folks that gentlemen from ?? noted a lot of most effects.One of also reasons that i oppose the lottery because i that believe the gambling is addictive.i believe that the folks out there who are gonna play the lottery get addicted and we saw the evidence to suggest that was true.Wat i didn't suspect the time though folks that get addicted to gambling will be the general assembly of north Carolina.We liked the first head of it so much we like the double head of it a double amount a double dose of the addicting substance and then to use that try to pay for teachers salary.Juts many other things wrong with this budget but that alone did not make me vote against it.I'm gonna vote no and hopes that my colleagues are across the hour who with me nine years ago who oppose lottery but also vote no lets go back to drawing boards work together and find the way to give the teachers the pay raises with need without continuing addiction to gambling, Speaker Changes: Mr Speaker speaker, Speaker Changes: Representative Stamp please state purpose, Speaker Changes: I would represent ?? to yells that question, Speaker Changes: Representative ??, Speaker Changes: yes sir, Speaker Changes: He yells, Speaker Changes: Representative Martin perhaps remember the last session in which governor easily proposed the expansion of the lottery to get more money by changing the formula.it was about 100 million dollars in more money from changing the formula.This change is been by 100 million more money by making a change in the advertising including making ?? adverting.Do you recall that how you voted on that budget i believe it was 2007 or 8 in which you voted to expand the lottery take.Here by 100 million employing gambling provided by about another 300 million, Speaker Changes: Let me clear about my objection on my point here ?? i appreciate the language you have got in there to try to put truth in this lottery supported the form with off course is this gonna have the people actually believe it is gonna pay the lottery much and therefore we are not gonna exceed the bill on pay ?? so that you can be able to pay here.The ?? with this is by increasing the advertising you are getting more folks get on the gambling.You are actually reaching out there to them at athletic event i see the ads on TV cant go fill up the gas station without seeing the ad scratch off and that sort of things actually reaching not more for ??, Speaker Changes: Mr.Speaker, Speaker Changes: Representative Stamp will represent martin for the second question, Speaker Changes: Yes sir, Speaker Changes: He votes, Speaker Changes: Representative Martin do you recall in 2007 i believe voting for that budget which took about additional sales of about 300 million dollars lottery tickets to produce about 100 million of education your call how you voted, Speaker Changes: Again i did voted for that budget but i let me be very clear that the difference here you are taking and marketing,you are sending the dealer out there,advertising twice as much as they are people who are already addicted to gambling and using that somehow to pay to teacher raises to teach the children of those folks that you aren't get addicted to gambling is just wrong ,vote no let's go back to the drawing board and find a better way together to pay for this , Speaker Changes: Mr speaker, Speaker Changes: Representative glacier please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: I wonder if Representative martin might yell for a question please , Speaker Changes: Representative Martin you yell , Speaker Changes: Yes sir, Speaker Changes: Thank you very much Mr speaker so Representative Martin you voted for that 2007 budget that included the lottery money fro other money than supplement as oppose as to plan for it not , Speaker Changes: That's correct follow up Mr speaker , Speaker Changes: Gentlemen you, Speaker Changes: Yes sir , Speaker Changes: He yells, Speaker Changes: Representative martin in this case the concern you are expressing with in fact this money is what is being used out for any plans for subsequent use as a planning in order to make the current expenses unlike like the example in 2010 when there was a planning in the height of the expression in order to meet the deficit for one year only with that be correct, Speaker Changes: That's correct i think i go by my district when the biggest complain i hear why do we need to,why we are having the problem of teacher salaries with the lotteries suppose to fox everything and that goes to the hard of planning issue, Speaker Changes: Members there was one additional amendment that arrived the Clark before the deadline that therefore we have one more,

Amendment to take up at this time, before we continue the debate. Representative Adams is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams moves to amend the bill on page 120, line 23, by rewriting the line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams is recognized to debate her amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this amendment adds a section 12-1J for the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that organizations that receive funds under the maternal and child health block grant for the provision of reproductive health services or education, provide comprehensive non-directed reproductive health care counseling. Now, it doesn’t really matter whether you support choice or my right to choice or whatever you support, we believe that unbiased reproductive health information should be provided. Now, the funds that are in the budget that provides for the crisis pregnancy centers don’t provide comprehensive accurate education in terms of reproductive health. And that’s what this amendment will do. It will ensure that the information that women receive is accurate, that it is not biased, and regardless to where you are on the issue of abortion, you still need accurate information. So that’s what the amendment will do. It will allow those individuals who make choices to get information that’s accurate. And that’s all we’re asking, that comprehensive information be provided, that whatever the pros and cons are, that information will be given to those individuals who come to these centers. That’s the amendment. I hope you will support it, regardless how you feel about it, everyone can agree that people should not be mislead or misguided. They shouldn’t be coerced. But that this information be given to them freely and that’s really what the amendment does. And I would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the amendment to lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion to lay the amendment 31, the Adams amendment, 37, the Adams amendment on the table having been made by Representative Moore and seconded by Representative Cleveland, we will now vote on the motion to lay the amendment on the table. Those in favor of tabling amendment 37 will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 67 having voted in the affirmative, excuse me 69 having voted in the affirmative and 45 in the negative, the motion to table amendment 37 has passed and members we are back on the bill. Representative Holloway, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Folks, in the ten years that I’ve been here, I’ve seen a lot of budgets. And is this budget perfect? No. But I’m going to have to say it’s the best budget I’ve seen in ten years. This budget gives teachers the raise that they deserve and not only does it just give them 5% if you look very close, we’re moving back to try to get teachers to where they’re supposed to be on the pay scale. To help correct the wrongs that we were forced to have to do because of shortfalls. It funds TAs, does not cut a single cent from teacher assistants. It funds HHS, we’re taking care of the elderly and the sick, and those who need special care.

All the resources that is there, it could be provided to them to help lift them out of the current situation that they are in and better that northeastern portion of our state. I urge you to support this amendment so that we can try to help continue moving Universities like Elizabeth City State forward and continue and try to move the State forward. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pierce, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. Mr. Speaker, Ladies and gentlemen, I rise this afternoon to support this amendment for a couple of reasons. You spent a lot of [wuss] in the chamber, in the general assembly of the last two sessions. We've heard about consolidating and I think, I heard representative Dollar talk about some things, how good a job people are doing but there was some [wuss] a couple of years ago about consolidation. I think that's still in demand of some folks so we need to consider that and what happened just a few weeks ago I think that you'll remember that legislative black caucus had a press conference to lay us out against the proposal that was on the table in dealing with Elizabeth City. But with that proposal on the table, what you end up doing was you put a nail in the coffin. Because of what happened students who were thinking about going to Elizabeth City, you put something in their minds they can then believe that maybe for a year or two the school could close down. So, I think we set a dangerous precedent for Elizabeth City by doing that. Black Universities have been underfunded for years and I think we all know that and they face a very difficult time and we've got a lot of issues that we definitely need to deal with but I think we're setting a dangerous precedent dealing with Elizabeth City because I think that the [competition] is still gonna be out there. I think the board of governors still have a mind to find some way somehow to close that University down. We don't need to run from it, we don't need to hide from it. I believe they're still talking about it while they're drinking ice water in back rooms, they are still talking about that. Why do you say that representative Pierce? Because we've been talking about it for two sessions; each time we would beat it back but I still think the reality is on the table to try to find a way. We're pulling programs, we're pulling curriculum, I remember that. Keep right on pulling that and eventually students would not want to go to that University. So, Representative Mobley has a good proposal on the table. And you're right. I think when I stand and speak, people say well he's preaching. What's in like everybody else who deny who don't have a life has been preaching so, I guess I need to preach. But I think we really need to take a hard look at this and let's be fair to this university. You have dug a hole for this university in the last two sessions. Ladies and gentlemen, you did that. You have sent a negative signal across this state and to surrounding areas. Students who would consider going there, you sent the wrong signal. So we're asking tonight, I agree with my colleagues, we need to do the right thing. It's not gonna hurt the budget. This will help them recruit, this will help them sustain programs already at that University. Let's give them a chance. I ask you to vote yes on this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and gentlemen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak briefly on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the house, for many years I've represented in my district, the North Carolina central University and we're proud and ?? Of the work that NCCU has done for our community and for the state and for the nation. The reason I'm speaking to support the amendment is because the amendment is about financial assistance for students and I learned a few years ago in research and in conversation at NCCU some realities about income of the families at the HPCUs of our state and Pembroke State vs. UNC Chapel Hill and NC State and the reality is this that for the five HPCUs, the average family income is 30,000 dollars. At NC state and at UNC Chapel Hill, the average family income is 90,000 dollars. It's obvious then that the young people who are attending these schools badly need financial assistance and that to me is enough reason for us to make a special step, an unusual step that ?? To provide assistance for young people.

Domestic violence commission that is a citizen led board of experts and leaders. And all of these things are just going to be wrapped up, tied up, and moved to the department of public safety. And when I asked the question in subcommittee about why this suddenly appeared in the budget, no one could really give me an answer. It just is. Transferring this agency to the department of public safety will result in significant delays in federal and state grant funding to over 239 non-profits in North Carolina agencies do not maintain 3 to 6 months of funding to sustain services. And these agencies reach people that are in need until January 2015 and so, what do they do between July 1 and January 2015? This could result in the possible closing of shelters in North Carolina. Shelters that protect women and their families. This is going to disrupt services that are supported by federal funding. Federal funding that comes to North Carolina because of the programs we supply through the council for women. And basically what this has done is really eviscerated a program that deals with women, children and family issues that's been running very efficiently and very well for very many years. And we don't know why it's suddenly moving. Transferring this agency to the department of public safety will impact the maintenance of the council for women regional offices, and those regional offices with the services that they provide to citizens in Charlotte and Asheville and New Bern and Greensboro areas. All of those regional offices will be shuttered. And so what i'm trying to get at here is the sort of random nature of taking one very well run program, a program to whose council I was appointed back during the time that Governor Hunt was Governor in North Carolina. Why would it suddenly be moved to a whole other department? And for that reason, and for many other reasons that just give me real pause about this budget, I have to vote no. And I encourage my colleagues to take a look at the random sort of things that have happened throughout this budget and give thought to voting no with me. Thank you. [Speaker Change]Representative Avella [sp] please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To debate the bill. [Speaker Change] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker change] Thank you Mister Speaker. I would venture to say that i'm 100% correct in making the statement that not one person on the floor of this house are 100% sure that they are happy with everything that's in here. And i'm just going to ask you one question, and the question is the same for several areas. Think about your objection to the budget. Now, is your objection of a higher priority than maintaining the Medicaid eligibility that covers some of the most vulnerable people that you represent? Is it a higher priority than 9 million dollars extra in pre-k that will possibly change the direction of peoples lives? Is your objection of a higher priority than 27 million new dollars in child protective services? Is your objection higher than an increase of 5 million dollars for our foster care programs? For fully funding school nurses? For keeping the right school open? Answer those questions and cast your vote. Please support the budget. Thank you. [Speaker Change] Representative Meyer, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To debate the bill. [Speaker Change] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mister Speaker.

I would just like to make sure that we all recognize that infect no teacher with more than 8 years of experience will be getting a 5% raise and any teacher with 10 year experience or more will actually get less than 3% raise based on this budget. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the budget Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the authority to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker I had not actually much to probably your thinking not true not plan to debate the budget this evening. And I am gonna tell you why and then I am gonna tell you why I am debating. And no one notes which is always been my way of doing it, may be the lawyer and me I don't like to go anywhere where I am prepared but this gonna be truly extemporaneous this evening for me because literally I have fall elbow with myself for three days over whether to vote for this budget or not and I am going to tell you why I am not going to. But I am going to set out first reasons why I have almost did. I don't think the majority in this body should be commended for doing couple of things, first for understanding particularly in the education arena, where I think the couches disserve immense credit for how they have tried to deal with the restriction in the budget and I think they deserve credit for saying something that very few of us find easy to say and that is we made mistakes and they should receive credit for acknowledging that, weather it is on teacher pay or masters pay weather it is on carrier statics. We are making some corrective course change here and that is something we all should be grateful for but I will day we are making corrective changes impart because of self-inflected wounds that many of is in the minority warned you about and warned us about for several years and the results this year can come home to roost in far greater way than may be anyone of us imagined. We are suffering enormous enormous difficulty in public education and I credit the majority by trying to put their fingers in the breaches in the dam and had they turned that 2 and 3 and even last year we might not be facing a dam that has multiple beaches where simply stopping a few is not going to hold up the dam. We have teachers retiring in an ?? numbers. They have literal confidence in what we do and so that is something we all should share responsibility for. So while I credit the fixes I have to say that in this sense for some degree the budget that we pass tonight all be it many times better than the enormously destructive Senate budget that passed just a week ago. Is a budget a paraphrasing something president Bush said years ago remains of budget that is suffers from soft ?? of the lowest expectations it has its core structural deficit that we do not fix tonight and we make no plan to sustain a fix for it which in large measure concerns me greatly. And while it may or may not be true weather there are other ways for doing things. I cannot in good conscious some who stood up here and told you last year that I would if I could change one vote in this building and either it was my vote on the lottery but now we sit here and try to suppliant completely and hold our hopes on fixing those things we have done wrong to public education and elsewhere but the hopes that more and more people will gamble and to the tune of hundred and 10 million more dollars I think that is just inherently died way to run a government and it doesn't do justice to what the majority is trying to do.

Found other ways to fix the teacher pay issue and get us started in the right direction. Took that lottery proceeds that are there and try to use them in other capacities to bolster the budget as a backdrop. There might at least be an understanding. But that’s not what’s been done here. And the second thing I would say, in doing this, we are praising ourselves tonight for giving teacher the pay rise and we should give them the pay rise. And much more sustainable, I suppose in the relevant scheme of things between the house and the senate. And we are 46th in the nation.And we allowed ourselves to get here. And we have no plans to truly improve it pass it this year, except some good intent, I hope. Although we fixed the masters pay and some worked through the status., can you honestly look at yourself and say, we would have done anything to the status had the court not joined us. We are doing this as we almost have to. But at the same time what we failed to say on this floor is that the last several years, including years when we were in chair, we have made over 500 million in continuing cuts to public education. Thousands of positions that we don’t try to remedy at all tonight. We just assume that they can continue to live with it. We have made multiple digit percentage cuts to office supplies, to central office personnel, to non certified personnel and we don’t attempt to fix it tonight. Because we say we can’t. That is fundamentally a self fulfilling prophecy. We can we simply chose not to. I don’t agree with that. My god. I simply don’t agree with that. Even if that’s the way to go given what’s happening in the school today, it cannot be the confidence builder that we need to have. I looked at the JPS budget. I sat in and was privileged enough to sit in on Chairman ?? and Chairman Davis, had good discussions. But the Unanimous report that came out of that that includes the plead by nearly every aspect of the court system for help. One of those was by the crime lab. We have lost 50% of the personnel in a couple of years because they were simply not paid anything approaching the market rate. We sit on this floor and talk about the justice system and then the one thing that might help totally move through the criminal justice system and we do nothing about that. We sat in that committee and we listened to the fact that ?? defense services is nearly $ 6 million in back payments and we do nothing seriously to help them.But we did say, we would try. Are we really trying? Chairman Dawry said enormous times how much burden exists on AOC and the justice system and in truth we don’t do much to help them. Simply we try to see that there is no further damage. In Helping human services, majority should be commended for fixing some of the problem that senate caused in the budget, because this medicaid budget is simply better. But can we honestly look and say that we solved any of the issues that we really say exists with the service needs that are there. Probably not. The best that can be said is that we are inflicting more damage. Is that really the vision for the state that we are inflicting it more damage. On the environment front, we had a few people back. But that after we terminated 20% to 30% of the department over the last coupleof years. Is that really the best we can do?. So, I came very close. Because I wanted to commend the majority for at least admitting responsibility and moving in the right direction on several fronts. But I can’t do it because when the fix is a lottery fix. And I can’t do it, when there is no sustainable effort that appears to be there to get us past this year and to really move us to a different place. I may speak more in the morning when I have my thoughts together after a long day. I want the majority to know that I appreciate everything they are trying to do. But it is as Representative Lucas said and as Rep Martin said, we can do and we have to do much better than we are doing tonight. And I believe in higher expectations for all of us. I believe that’s what the citizens have. And I believe we owe them a better effort that we put in forth this budget. Thank you. [speaker changes]: Representative Hopp

Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate all the members who have given a lot of attention and effort, my sympathies to Representative Holloway who says this is one of the toughest things he’s had to do. And certainly he now empathizes with many of the people who had to make this happen in the past. I’d probably ask you to close your eyes and just think good thoughts. And that would probably be emblematic of some of what we have of this budget that’s critical. Because our teacher pay crisis deserves more than we’ve given them. And we’re part of this body too, and so we’ll be looked at as well. And unfortunately it’s hard to explain to people that hey, we didn’t have a vote. It was a super majority. We were just along for the ride. We’ll share the blame for what we did here. Our best teachers will still decide to leave our state, or they’ll keep working two or three jobs until they just can’t carry it anymore, and leave the profession. And we’ll still have this problem in front of us. Many of you have businesses and you understand and have served in government and you understand maintenance cycles. And when you fail to do that maintenance, what’s needed to keep things operating at a good level, and you go to the next cycle, you understand that you’re doubling the costs. In some way, form or fashion, you’re doubling the cost. And that’s what I fear that we’re doing now. Our per people spending will still rank among the worst in the nation, even with this budget. It does nothing to dig us out of the hole that we’ve achieved or has resulted from the past cuts of the past few years. And it doesn’t really give our students then a fair shot and a fair chance at success. I want to talk about the lottery issue because either a lot of people fell asleep on it, a lot of folks didn’t really want to see the truth here. And I certainly want to talk about that because it’s critical as we talk about funding education. Now we put our lottery commission in an untenable situation. We told them to figure out what additional advertising would do as far as revenue it would generate. And they came back and said well if we did this additional advertising, it generates $65 million to $105 million. $65 million to $105 million, about a $40 million spread. And somehow the absolute top end of that number got legs without examination and vetting. I don’t know how it got by you. I trusted in good faith that somehow it just got accepted. Everybody closed their eyes, thought good thoughts, and we had $105 million all of a sudden. Now, that was before Representative Stam’s amendment got in on this lottery act. That would by his intent and own admission, should and probably would decrease the amount of funding that could be achieved even under that maximum best-case scenario that’s been put out there to fund these teachers’ raises. I don’t think it was irresponsibility. Maybe it was a blind spot and we’re reaching for a solution here in an election year and we’re not being as careful as we normally are, not doing as much due diligence as we would normally do. But if you think about it, if just doing more advertising would generate that additional revenue, then they’d never get fired on Madison Avenue. Advertising executives would never lose an account if that’s all it took. Another item in the budget that we need to look at, we’ve decided that we’re going to move the SBI from the Attorney General to the Department of Public Safety. And you’ve heard some people comment already on the problems that’s going to

There are currently ongoing investigations into the governor's office regarding Duke Energy and the Coal Ash Bill and the Dan River into donations that were given from sweepstakes gambling on the internet. So we all know that these things are happening and they're challenging the confidence the public has in us and our process. And they certainly are coming to rely on the Attourney General's office to be the one person standing outside of our process that they can look to let them know what's going on. And then you think about it, you say, "Well, why the Attourney General's office? What difference does it make?" 290 investigations into public corruption and influence over the past few years, since 2009. That's a large number. That's a lot of work. That's a lot of responsibility. And the public relies on us to provide them that assurance that we're not down here inside trading and inside dealing with their interests. The one thing we know after all of these budgets and again Representative Holloway has my sympathies. I understand and he now better understands what it's like and the great effort he's put in. And everyone who's worked on it. As he said late nights, et cetera. But we chose to do this budget in this fashion. Thats your choice. Could've done it like the Senate, done it over night. Wham bam, thank you ma'am and roll something out. We could've had more involvement by community groups and others in the hearing process. We did have a hearing process though, and that's to our credit, over at the Senate. But we still have that problem of our budget. You heard a comment about teachers' salaries. Let's talk about what this budget is going to do about teachers' salaries. And we talk about it's going to give a pay raise. Well, if you're a teacher with 36 years in, you get 0. 35.64 percent. 34 1.30. If you're seventeen years in, you get a 2.21 percent pay raise. Eighteen years, 2.25. Nineteen years, you're 2.29. So, as was already commented, once you get past the eighth year, you head downward on the sacle. So are we really giving our teachers what they deserve and thereby giving our children what they deserve? I continue to push the majority to do more and do better. Some people say that's the job of the worthy opposition. And I know some of you would say I'm not worthy, but that is part of what we do. And that's why we need to be in the process. To push you to have better ideas and come up with a better solution for North Carolina. We can't fund our teachers, we can't fund our children's education, we can't fund the future of this state on a lottery and on a number that's the top of the range before we minimized our ability to reach it. Why is that important? At the end of the day. And we'll get there. At the end of the day both the House and the Senate has said the budget's fine as it is. We can go home. We don't need to reach an accomodation. So with those statements out there, I can't now support what I don't know because we know this would need to go to conference. And both chambers have expressed that they don't feel they have to come to an accomodation on this budget. So where do we go from there? And once again I look to the majority leader. Excuse me, the Speaker Pro Tempore. And he says he's not concerned if teachers' pay raises are now tied closely to a prominence of increased lottery sales. If they don't get met, we'll just find the money somewhere else. Well we know what the solution has been on that. We shoud all be honest. The solution has been let's cut employees, let's cut teachers, let's

Cut teachers’ assistants, that’s what the solution had been the last couple of cycles and this lottery fix is not a fix so where do we end up? We either end up in a bigger hole next year or we end up reducing teachers, reducing state employees, and not fulfilling the promise in the illusion we’ve created by saying this budget will provide that assistance. Now I know lots of folks are going to say well you know you’re in the minority and you need to sit down and be quiet and let us do what we do, but that’s not really our job. We got elected like you did, we represent districts just like you do, we have people who are relying on us, the future of North Carolina, our family members, all of those. So we can’t sit down and be quiet, we can only push you to be honest with yourselves and do the best you can do. So again I can’t support this budget right now, I know it has to go to conference ,I know there’s been effort made on the house side. I remember the last budget we sent over to the senate and I implored you, I said please after all the work we’ve done, do not sell out, do not give up and give in and give away the principles that we espoused and said that we had when you did all the work you did to put this together. Don’t just roll over, lie down, and walk away and then that’s a disservice to everyone that participated in the process for that to happen and so although it’s been said that that might be what happens, that people could live with that and accept it, I hope you won’t do that. I hope you’ll go and fight for what you claim is in this budget that’s important and I hope you also find a way to legitimately sustain these raises because there is no study and I checked with the North Carolina lottery commission, there is no statement from them saying they can reach this number since we put this damn amendment on and we’re being irresponsible and closing our eyes and apparently thinking those good thoughts and just whistling on past the graveyard so I you’ll open your eyes, look at reality, negotiate hard, and serve the people of North Carolina and when you bring back whatever it is that comes back from the conference committee I hope it’s something that we can then support. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Dollar please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker, members of the house, I find it very interesting it’s like a basketball game and you’ll have some fans and they’ll sit up the stands and they’ll criticize and say oh they’re not playing hard enough and they can’t shoot, they’re not working together, this is bad, that’s bad, but when are they going to get in the game and actually play? I hear all the time criticism but who is there soldiering with us in this endeavor to try to have a budget that meets the needs of our citizens? And so when people only want to sit on the sidelines and don’t want to get in and don’t want to vote for things and don’t want to move forward, I don’t take them quite as seriously, but I do want to answer some things that have been raised. You talk about teacher using the lottery for teacher pay, we do it already, $220 million. You already have $505 million there that the budget relies on coming from the lottery and what does that fund? That funds teachers in the classroom. That funds pre-K. That funds school construction. That funds a whole host of things that are continuing expenditures and it’s been done that way for years. The percentage of the lottery that has gone to education has been dropping over years. That was the other side that said what we’ll do is take off the percentage, the restrictions, on the percentages that could be used for prizes because what would it do? It would increase sales. Well it did increase sales, but you also drop the percentage that’s coming into education from the overall take of the lottery.

We went to Lottery this year and said, look, we want to know what we can do to generate additional money for education. Let the Education Lottery be the Education Lottery. They came to us with the idea. We didn’t create the numbers. They came to us with these numbers. Some are criticizing for the teacher pay schedule. I am just amazed. It’s your pay schedule. It’s the one, as a matter of fact, as I recall, you froze. And now you don’t want to help us to unfreeze the pay schedule. That makes no sense. And I don’t mean to quibble. But when I hear things like well, the people at the top of the pay range are not getting any salary increase. Obviously they have not read the budget. They get a bonus. It’s average of the pay increase at those top ranges. Everybody is getting an increase and nobody is left out o this budget. And what do we do for the future. And we are trying to plan for the future to modernize the total compensation system with career pathways. And we are trying to address the fact that we are losing teachers by rising entry level teacher pay by substantial amount. And we had made a commitment not just for this year, but also for the next year that we are going to keep and you can bet on it. Let me mention a couple of other things. This budget and it has been brought to everyone’s attention. We are putting in ?? for medic aid to protect those programs. We have got millions more going in to job protective services. We have got money to address coal ash that everybody say as a major issue that they want to be addressed by this general assembly. We are helping veterans and veteran education. We are putting money in, we are fulfilling the community college’s number one request to the tune of $ 50 million in closing the skills gap. These are great things that we are doing in this budget. Who is going to come with us? Who is going to be with us to get these things done? We are putting money in mental health crisis. I remember when mental health was being cut by this chamber by the majority by $ 174 million. People seem to forget that. Few years ago. I haven’t forgotten it. I remember when those cuts came through. Now we are trying to get money back in to the system. where is the help for that? I get the impression often that it is simply a matter of Ok , what people really are saying is they want us to rise the taxes. But they don’t want to say that. When I hear remarks like, where you could have done better , you could have done more on teacher pay, you could have done here, you could have done it without funding mechanism since you are looking at doing instead of having funding mechanism. What you are really saying is you want to raise taxes but you don’t want to say that. Got to have the courage and say look , we have got a solution. we want to raise taxes. That’s a legitimate policy. Bring it forward. Be happy to talk with you about that. And what the alternatives are? I got to mention one another thing and that’s the whole business domestic violence. The program is moving intact and there are no cuts. The program is moving intact and will operate. And we believe it may even operate better than it’s currently operating. There are so many good things in the budget. The budget is structurally sound. I just have to laugh out loud when people bring the question, it’s not structurally sound as it should to be. Really? You are telling me the budget we have inherited from you in 2011 with a $2.5 billion structural hole in it. Compared to this budget. It doesn’t have structural holes that pay with recurring expenditure with recurring dollars. That’s exactly what everybody said in this chamber that we want to have it in this budget and we have been doing that in very difficult times. So, I would say to all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I believe we have crafted a very strong budget that is sound that is responsible that funds our top priorities in very difficult times. Who is going to ?? their share of the load. Who is going to shoulder?

Responsibility to the citizens tonight and vote for this budget. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Robert Brawley please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Ask Representative Dollar a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Dollar does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Dollar you made some very good points, you and your committee have worked very hard. Would you accept a thank you? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I would accept a thank you on behalf of the 22 full chairs and subcommittee chairs of the committees and on behalf of all those who have worked with us on the appropriations committee, thank you very much. And the finance committee. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Dwayne Hall please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speak to the budget. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the budget as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members, I walked in today because of the teacher salary increases and reinstituting the steps program with the intention to vote for this budget. A lot of members of my caucus tried to convince me not to, leadership tried to convince me not to, but it was actually a member on your side that changed my mind. It was a representative that after we stood up with a great amendment that I know a lot of you guys agreed with and again laid it on the table so Representative Dollar asked us to get in the game. You guys don’t allow us to play, you haven’t allowed us much of the session so this budget is your budget, this budget that cuts money from DENR, this budget that takes the SBI and puts it under the control of the people that it’s investigated, including a lot of members in this gallery. This budget that cuts pre-K childhood development, this is your budget, this budget that cuts legal aid and indigent defense services where I started my legal career defending people who can’t afford to take care of themselves, this is your budget. So don’t tell me to accept my responsibility, my responsibility is to the people that voted for me and I’m voting against this budget. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Burr please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Will Representative Hall yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hall does the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hall you just mentioned that this budget cuts pre-K, can you please show me where this budget cuts the overall pre-K spending? [SPEAKER CHANGE] It cuts who is eligible for pre-K, it eliminates a lot of people that could have had that help that is no longer going to be there. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Does the gentleman yield for a follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hall can you show me what page in this budget we’re cutting eligibility for pre-K? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I don’t have the page in front of me now. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] So are you positive we’re cutting funding from pre-K or cutting eligibility for pre-K? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’m certain we’re cutting whose eligible for pre-K. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hall I would suggest that you actually read the budget and would ask that you take a look at that. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Burr is the gentleman framing a question? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes sir I’m getting there. I would recommend that you read the budget, specifically the section dealing with education and pre-K and health care and maybe respond to the question when you have an opportunity to look at that but you will see that pre-K is not cut, eligibility, nor funding. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Insko please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’d like to ask Representative Burr a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] If the members will yield, Representative Hall did you rise a second time to be recognized to debate the budget? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I did Mr. Speaker. The eligibility cuts are on page G5 of the budget. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hall does the gentleman yield for a follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGE] No Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Insko please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’d like to ask Representative Hall a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hall does the gentleman yield for a follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Are you aware Representative Hall that we changed the eligibility for childcare subsidy in the health and human services budget we previously had given childcare subsidy for children at 75% of the..

The average income in North Carolina would change that to 100% of federal poverty level. [Speaker Change] I am aware. I think we changed it to 133%. [Speaker Change] Do you wish to ask a follow up question? [Speaker Change] Yes. [Speaker Change] Does the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields. [Speaker Change] Do you have the numbers on how many children that will cut in that age range? That would no longer be eligible for that program? I believe it's about 2,500 children. Is that the number you have? [Speaker Change] It is. [Speaker Change] Further discussion. Further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute number 2 to senate bill 744 is amended on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [pause]. All members please record. The clerk will [??] machine record the vote. 81 having voted affirmative and 36 in the negative. The house committee substitute number 2 to senate bill 744 has passed its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Ladies and gentlemen I have been on the legislature since 2011. I can say that this is the first time we have passed a budget on the second reading while the sun was still shining. Congratulations. Before we move into notices and announcements, the chair would like to extend a special thank you for the hard work of the staff who are in the chamber and all of the staff who are not here, that without them this would not be possible. Ladies and gentlemen, the chair understands that it is the position of the minority caucus that we will have a session in the morning. It is the intent of the chair to convene session at 8:30 a.m. Notices and announcements.[??] Senator Moore is recognized. [Speaker Change] Mister Speaker I move that subject to ratification of bills, messages from the senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referral bills and resolutions, deployment of [??] and modifications to the calendar, that the house to be adjourned to reconvene on Friday, June the 13th at 8:30 a.m. [Speaker Change] Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Dollar. Subject to ratification of bills and resolutions receded messages from the senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referral bills and resolutions, deployment of [??] and modifications to the calendar that the house do now adjourn to reconvene on Friday, June the 13th at 8:30 a.m. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The house [??] is adjourned.