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 13, 2014 | Chamber | House Session

Full MP3 Audio File

Speaker: Members please take your seat visitor please retire from the chamber,members and visitors in the gallery please turn off all your cell phone and electronic devices inside the gallery, Speaker Changes: The ?? been offered by representative ??, Speaker Changes: Members and visitors in the gallery please stand and please rain standing for the pledge of religions, Speaker Changes: Let us pray,father and god creator of all earth we come to you toady to finish the job of developing the budget for the state of North Carolina.We now have the forth free ideas and free presentations and the thoughts of literally hundred of people's to deal the state of North Carolina money.We ask now as we go into conference would you be with us each step of the way.Help u to reach us single goal and help us to reach it through comprise and discussion ,guide and direct facts and figure that we get ?? so we an place our decisions on solid foundations,be with each other here as they struggle ?? as we consider ideas are uncomfortable possibilities that may not take place help us to deal with disappointment what we wont ?? but help us all to be satisfied what you given us through your guidance through your wisdom.your grace and your mercy.Be with these people as we continue to ?? complete our job,be with our families as they stood behind us solidly for hours we haven't been able to spend with them,bless them and help them to know that we are serving our state just as definitely as the one's elected here.We as over now that you watch over all of the military they made us possible us to com together discuss issues in free and open manner and be ale to reach the decisions that we fled the best in us through your help and guidance,what we ask now blessing on ?? that we has made decisions that will make their lives ?? and react ?? contributions and letting us know what they need and understand that everything can happened immediately sometimes it happens the way they they wont like it.But guide and direct us and keep us safe and all this ?? by saviors name Jesus Christ,amen, Speaker Changes: Representative ? is recognized, Speaker Changes: Mr.Speaker the Jenifer ?? 2014 is examined to found to be correct, Speaker Changes: Representative ? moved in the ??, Speaker Changes: All oppose no, Speaker Changes: Yeah, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is approved the written, Speaker Changes: Petitioners ?? address the general assembly of the house and senate bill is been noted, Speaker Changes: introduction bill and resolutions to ??, Speaker Changes: ?? house bill 1264 disclosure of certain campaign ?, Speaker Changes: Your elections, Speaker Changes: Representative ??, Speaker Changes: ?? house resolution 565 Angelo, Speaker Changes: Rules and county operations of the house,the message from the center ??, Speaker Changes: House bill 183 scenic committee bill subside the bill that ?? delay the transfer bill of a Cleveland collect county facility, Speaker Changes: Counter present rule 36D Speaker Changes: Committee ?? conspiracy contract ?? of law corporations, Speaker Changes: Judiciary Speaker Changes: Senate bill 790,a bill that counts and act to face ??,

Senate Bill 845, a bill ?? enact to allow the village of Bald Head Island to operate a contract post office with a governmental or commercial entity. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 848, a bill ?? enact concerning public-private reimbursement agreements for infrastructure development by the town of Mint Hill, by the city of Concord and by the city of Kannapolis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Government and federal finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 867, a bill ?? enact to extend the terms of office from two to four years for the mayor and members of the board of ?? of the town of McDonald. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 868, a bill to ?? enact to extend the terms of office from two to four years for the mayor and members of the board of ?? of the town of Proctorville. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Government. Ladies and gentlemen, without objection, rule 12D is suspended. Is there objection? So ordered. Calendar, Senate Bill 744. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 744, a bill to ?? enact to make a base budget appropriations for current operations of state departments, institutions and agencies and for other purposes. General Assembly of North Carolina unites. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and members of the House, we had I believe a debate yesterday that on all sides does credit to this great chamber. We dispensed with in the time we took yesterday some 37 amendments in a variety of ways. We heard a lot of passion on a lot of issues very wide-ranging. We were very pleased, Mr. Speaker and members of the House, to conclude that debate with a strong bipartisan vote for this budget, and if memory serves me correctly, we had the largest number of votes for a budget since I believe 2008, when a number of us on the Republican side joined with the Democrat majority in supporting their budget. We would appreciate everyone’s support again for the budget this morning, and thank you for all of your hard work. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, first of all I have an inquiry to the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are we going to be able to introduce any other amendments today on this budget? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will allow amendments to be presented for the next 15 minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well that’s fine because I really… Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, and I’m speaking on… I’m having an amendment drawn right now. Folks stayed up part of last night trying to do it; I think will enhance even what you all are trying to do. Representative Dollar indicated last night that we’re sitting over here sitting on our hands and probably not doing anything. I just want to show you that we are trying to do something whether you take it or not, but I think it’s something that you can… you all will be able to live with as well as what we can live with. If I can be given an opportunity for them to finish up that amendment, it’s one that… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, do you have any idea how long it will take? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just left from over there. They are putting the final touches on it right now. It shouldn’t take any more than 15 or 20 minutes, if I could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair… the Clerk will take any amendments that have already been made or a request has been made by staff, no additional amendments that have not already been made by staff, and therefore that provides you the time, Representative Michaux, to get it done because you indicated you did make the request last night, so we will consider your amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, since there do appear to be some amendments being prepared, the Chair would like to temporarily displace Senate Bill 744. There is a matter that we would like to bring before the body.

Speaker: And it's senate bill 574 without objection the chair would like to add immediate consideration for senate rule 36 representative ? this bill will relates to ground water contamination and based on the modification of supreme court decision statue that oppose.Getting better in betting a question i think so without objection, Speaker Changes: so order senate bill 574 the ??, Speaker Changes: House committee ?? for bill 574 ?? the certain civil acts regarding the ground water contamination or not subject to ten year statue ?? said for NGS 1-52 ??, Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To debate the bill the gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill, Speaker Changes: Thank you this very important and emotional issue and i do hope that you support what we are trying to do,Monday the us supreme court made a decision that families exposed to contaminate the ground water in the southern ash bill area from their right to fall a claim against ?? they determined that our statue of ?? limited to imposed to contaminate the people in ground water to maximum of ten years to fall a claim even though people exposed to contaminate the ground water may not know it, Speaker Changes: For decades that was never our intend,this legislation clarifies that i will say that i give you an example of serious this could be ?? one of them i know is master surgeon whose daughter Jany,What was when she was 8 years old.After being exposed to contaminated ground water for her entire he did 't not found out that they have been drinking contaminated ground water for another twelve years to hold anybody responsible for a ten year limitation in that situation is wrong so this state changes the ten years statue the reforms that ?? prior to our ?? well education and we past last session anonymously in both houses to be exact from that ten year requirement so this is a, think a very important think for our citizens,i think it's very important for marines ?? an dour urge to support this do know that,representative have a amid to follow, Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To debate the bill, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill, Speaker Changes: Thank you very much Mr.Speaker the house this is very important step as the North Carolina assembly is taking today ?? our statue to propose as an affirmative defense to protect them from any ?? from actions,what the action that we will take in these sort of say ?? this body in regards to have that statue ?? moving forward and how it should have been interpreted ?? i guess somewhat 20 or 30 years ago.Most of you that were hear most them would have recall the fact that we formed a committee to investigate the CTS hazardous wastes in issue in my district as well as to restrict currently represented by representative ??.An we discovered a lot of things that was quite alarming in regards to facts that ?? the case.This is the issue that we are aced with daily,ti is the case that made all way to the u.s supreme court and this action today should allow the citizens affected by that ?? in debate the merits these claims we bring this clarifying bill forward thank you Speaker Changes: Representative hall please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To debate the bill, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr.Speaker and the members of the house we would appreciate your support on this as you might know this senate budget bill we have would be back before shortly we did start a steady commission request so we could look into this mater and certainly we could be continue,

of this step that we take today. As I said before on the floor of this House probably the most shameful episode in the history of the proud traditions of the United States Marine Corps has been what happened at Camp Lejeune and our failure to protect and act for our own and this bill will help address that to some extent. And again, I'd appreciate your support on the bill and your past support on the amendment in the budget. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I'm following Representative Ramsey's amendment. I have a perfecting amendment that we've been working on and I'll hold until then. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ramsey, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ramsey moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 2 by substituting the word "clarifying" for the word "providing" and [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members of the House. This is, as it says, a clarifying amendment. It's a technical amendment. I've spoken with Representative Glazier and I think he's going to send, Representative Glazier's going to send forth perhaps an amendment to make a few additional changes but this just clarifies this law. We're clarifying our existing statute of repose and providing what the legislature has intended all along and would ask the members of the body to support this amendment. If you have any questions be glad to answer those now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, just a note, this amendment does change the title which would not make it eligible for third reading without a suspension of the rules. The Chair would ask that if we do amend this that we get support to suspend the rules so that we can take third reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To, well if there's going to be another clarifying amendment perhaps I ought to go after that, when we get back on the bill as amended Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Ramsey for the House Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 574. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record please do so. The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 109 having voted affirmative, none in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Glazier is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier moves to amend the bill on page 2, lines 3-8 by rewriting those lines to read: [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Representative is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and working with Representative Ramsey and Representative Moffitt and your staff this morning, it adds a couple of changes that I think are important. The Supreme Court, in a way it makes a final decision, decides cases but then there's a 30 day pending time frame afterwards before a mandate issues which becomes the critical trigger date. So this adds in no final disposition with prejudice and the mandate issues. And secondly it makes it clear that it's trigger is where the final court, the highest court that's heard the case, has that decision. And in this case or other cases it may be the Supreme Court or the North Carolina Supreme Court but it makes sure that we're talking about that and that this couldn't be read to just say when there's final disposition in a trial court. Now I think it clears up and does exactly what everyone wants it to and perhaps will help later on. I would urge adoption. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Glazier for the House Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 574. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 109 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes. We're now back on the bill as amended. Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Colleagues, I'm no longer much of a lawyer and so I'm not going to try to get into the bleeds[?] on the law here but I do want to observe. We oft times, on the floor, rail at how the Federal Government is jumping into this, that, and the other thing and here we've got a U.S. Supreme Court decision where the U.S. Supreme Court was

On to interpret North Carolina law. Well, ultimately that's our role, to determine what the law is. Based on the 4th Circuit decision earlier, they decided it in a different way than the US Supreme Court. So obviously a bunch of lawyers are interpreting North Carolina law in different ways, and what I'd suggest to you is we are acting appropriately in our role where there apparently is an ambiguity that probably most of us didn't recognize, certainly the folks that passed this law wouldn't ever have anticipated, and weigh in to provide some clarity with respect to a North Carolina law that has had to be interpreted by a Federal court. I would recommend the bill as amended to you both on policy reasons as my colleagues Representative Catlin and Moffitt and Hall have suggested, but also in terms of the role that we have here in terms of just putting forth the laws and making sure they are interpreted appropriately. So I recommend the bill to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McNeill, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yea, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of Representative Ramsey. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That may be tough. Representative Ramsey, would you please return to your seat? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ramsey, your amendment took out the expiration date and Representative Glazier's put it back in. Was that y'all's intention? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Sheriff, Representative, the old saying is you can't fool a sheriff, and you have proven that to be true. That's just what we were talking about. I think that's a question from staff, and maybe Representative Glazier may want to add some more to your question. That was about whether we intended to pull out that last language and how we're going to deal with that, so my amendment did intend to pull that out. I think Representative Glazier's amendment did add that back. We can argue whether that was appropriate or not, and if Representative Glazier has anything to add, if you want to address that to him, he may be able to answer that question better than I can. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McNeill, with your approval we will redirect to Representative Glazier. And Representative Glazier, does the gentleman yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, and good question Representative McNeill. We actually caught it and I think that the answer is that it is something that the two amendments can be reconciled by staff or dealt with in technical corrections and it was not my intent to add that back in, but in the drafting, in the hurry to get the other changes in the old language was put in there. So I think the intent will be to reconcile that by the staff between the two amendments and if that's not able to be done, then in a technical corrections or in another bill. But the answer is that I think that Representative Ramsey's pulling it out is fine and correct and that should happen at some point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the bill as amended? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 574 as Amended on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will out machine record the vote. 109 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 574 has passed its second reading. Representative Moore is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think we should suspend the rules so that third reading may be had on the bill at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the motion? If not, the question before the House is the motion to suspend the rules so that, for consideration of the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 574 on its third reading today. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will out machine record the vote. 108 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. House Committee Substitute, the motion passes. House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 574

The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 574 as amended on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The bill will be engrossed and sent to the Senate by special message. The House will be at ease for a few minutes while we take a look. Are there any members…? Let me just clarify this. Are there any members who have amendments that they intend to send forward? If you do, if the Clerk’s not already in possession, will you please turn on your light? Then there will be no more amendments received excepts those already received by the Clerk. We’ll need a couple of minutes just to sort them out, so the House will be at ease. The House will come to order. Members, please take your seats. Representative Blackwell is recognized to send forth an amendment AMM-54. The Clerk will read. Ladies and gentlemen, the bill is back properly before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell moves to amend the bill on page 75 by inserting the following between lines 45 and 46. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There were some sincere concerns expressed here yesterday with reference to Elizabeth City State University, and Representative Horn and McGrady and I have conferred and agreed that we felt that it was appropriate in this budget to take some action now in order to address some of those concerns so that we might be in a position next year in January to take some further action. So I’ve discussed this amendment with Representative Mobley and I understand that this is agreeable with her and a number of others who’ve expressed concerns yesterday, and basically what this would do is direct joint ed. oversight during the interim, with a report to the General Assembly when we convene next year to consult with the Board of Trustees of Elizabeth City State, and to engage in a study of plans and strategies to address financial and enrollment concerns at that university, and I would ask the House to join in adding this t our budget and adopting this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mobley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lady’s recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly want to thank my fellow colleague for this effort, this gesture, and I want to ensure you that the Alumni Association, along with the staff and all, are beginning to address the major concerns that we have about what direction the university’s moving, so strategies are already being put in place and worked on, and I ask you to support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Steinburg, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To speak on the amendment please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I concur with the remarks from Representative Mobley. Elizabeth City State University, which she and I both share Pasquotank County, is a vital economic engine to all of northeastern North Carolina, and I have been trying to, along with Representative Mobley, stay on top of this situation as it has been developing out there, and I can assure you that there are some very, very good people that are involved in trying to get this situation turned around. I’m going to be meeting next week with some of the board of Governors and with the folks from UNC…

… to discuss this a little further. We’ve had many, many folks coming by the office to express their concern as well, so this is indeed a very timely and wonderful amendment that I support enthusiastically, and I ask all my friends and colleagues to join me in doing so. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pierce, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to make a statement or two. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just wanted to thank the member Representative Blackwell for just a very positive response this morning to the issue we were discussing yesterday. Thank you for coming forth with that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Blackwell to 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. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 111 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Insko, the Chair understands that the lady wishes to withdraw ATR-18? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment is withdrawn. Representative Larry Hall is recognized to send forth AMD-79. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Hall moves to amend the bill on page 169, line 43, by rewriting the line to read… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the House. I’d like to direct your attention to this amendment. This is an amendment that as you know we dealt with yesterday – the question of moves of the lab and other things – and this amendment would allow us to do something that would preserve the integrity and the confidence of the citizens of North Carolina in our government. Now we know that everyone is human who serves in the House and Senate and throughout state government, and sometimes they yield to those temptations and the forces that swirl around us, and it’s important for the public to know that that will be examined and their interests will be safeguarded. As I indicated yesterday, since 2009, the SBI have conducted 260 public corruption investigations. I think I said 290, so please correct that in the record. This would allow us to keep this function – the financial crimes unit, the special investigations until, and ten additional SBI agents with the Department of Justice – to ensure that function stays with the Department of Justice. It allows the transfer of the other functions, as is indicated in the current budget bill. I think we’ve seen maybe a glaring example as to why we would want to do this, and you can see it right now as the saga plays out in Texas. As you know, the governor is in a situation there where despite whatever his best intentions might be, it appears that he is intentionally defunding the investigatory agency because he has control of their budget, and we don’t want the people of North Carolina to have to have those kinds of questions as to whether or not investigations are being influenced to prevent corruption in public service from being uncovered and discovered, and so I’d ask that you support the amendment, and this will allow us to maintain the confidence of the citizens in our investigations, in the level of integrity we have in public service. It also ensures that our other elected officials know that they have to uphold the standards to which their sworn when they take office, so I’d ask for your support on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I was just going to see if Representative Hall would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Hall, you were indicating that you wanted to make sure we had politics out of these investigation procedures, but isn’t Roy Cooper’s position political? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I can respond, Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, every position is political, and the question is who is going to be responsible and have influence over the investigatory process, and so if we have the executive branch investigating itself, having basically employees who depend upon the same people that they’re going to be investigating…

it would be a chilling effect on the investigation and the performance of these individual agents and other persons assigned. That is what we're concerned about. Again, looking at the number of investigations that's happened since 2009, 260, we know there are continuing situations and if you look at the record of the investigations that have happened they have not been partisan. They've been on both sides of the aisle. As a matter of fact some of the biggest investigations have involved democrats during the period of time that Roy Cooper has been attorney general so I don't think we can say that he has politicized the process or any undue influence has been exercised by his office. I think, if you look, the investigations have been fair across the board regarding public officials. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yield to a follow-up? Representative Hall? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Thank you, Representative Hall. But what you're saying is that we're trying to take the politics out of it and we all know that Attorney General Cooper is getting ready to perhaps run for office so that him a little bit more of a political creature out there. Aren't you providing your best argument for having an independent director who's given an eight year term no matter who's in office? Isn't that a better defense for making sure these are non-political? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I don't think it's a better defense. I think, again, the process we have in place has already proven itself. You're saying let's try to move to a new process that exposes us to that undue influence of the executive branch controlling investigations of itself, whether or not they appoint one person and then go around with a lower level appointments that they do do, or does the history show us that the system we have in place has been effective, it's been non-partisan, and we don't need to change this part of it and sacrifice the public's confidence in our system. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, I'll share from personal experience something that may impact your vote on this and I won't say whether I'm for it or against it but I'll tell you a little autobiographical stuff. In college I specialized in criminal justice, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State. Law school, I specialized in that as well with the professor teaching criminal law and I was hired at work for summer for the elected solicitor of Guilford County, Doug Albright, a well known democrat. It didn't bother him that I was republican and I was very naive, didn't think it was an issue. After law school I was recommended to clerk with a elected democrat, Justice Exum, I'm sure many of you all know him, a very well known democrat. He knew I was republican and so I was very naive. I thought politics had nothing to do with it. So I walked, at the end of my clerkship, I walked across the hall to where the Attorney General's Special Prosecution Office was to see if I could work in Special Prosecutions for the Attorney General. And the Chief Deputy, I won't call his name that-, a very well known person, said, "hey, you're very well qualified for this position but the then Attorney General, Robert Morgan, hires no republicans." So my life started on a separate path. If the Attorney General's Office was not political I might not have been here to bother any of you all for the last ten years. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The irony. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now the Attorney General's Office now does hire republicans but the idea that the Attorney General's office is non-political is rather a shocking concept to me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth, 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. I think that we, first of all JPS Chairs would ask that you vote no on this amendment and let the real organization that we're talking about take place and then as we get a new director in then that person can have input on how assignments would be made to investigators to various departments or for various cases and what-have-you. That is a part of the purpose of this organization. It also, I feel from experience having worked in the Department of Justice and from my law enforcement career, that it would work much better if the attorney general had an investigation that he wanted to conduct and he could contact the law enforcement unit, the SBI, the director of the SBI, who will not be an elected official

And request an agent or a group of agents to investigate that particular item for him at his direction, at the Attorney General's direction. This makes sense to me just as does the situation where a department within the state would have a legal situation in the office and the Attorney General would assign an attorney. So I think it's good organization. I think it gives us a chance to have a new model for direction of the agency. It gets law enforcement together so that they can work using their resources and using their expertise and putting the best agent in the best place for that particular investigation. So I'd ask you to vote no on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate Representative Faircloth's observations. I think it's clear, though, from the record you have in front of you that the process we have in place now through the Attorney General's Office works. We can't say it doesn't work. We don't have any founded complaints of any political shenanigans going on. We have the record of the number of investigations that have been done or are being done and have been completed and what we're saying now is this extremely large bureaucracy we're creating over at the Department of Public Safety is going to now also consume this. When we create this large organization in the budget and it starts to try to get its budget efficiencies, the temptation again is going to be where do we make the cuts and where do we sacrifice and, of course, the concern would be that we would lose the Integrity Unit and its effectiveness as part of that process. And were that to happen, people would rightfully say, here we go again, politicians with their hands in the cookie jar, and they want to make the organizations that are supposed to investigate them and keep them honest, they want to defund them, reduce them in size, make them ineffective and so they can do business behind closed doors. So I think it's in our best interest, it's in the best interest of the integrity of this House and this state government to say we have something that works, we have something that's proven to be bipartisan and we should keep what we have that works. So again, I'd ask your support on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Larry Hall to 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. The clerk will out machine record the vote, 42 having voted in the affirmative, 69 in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative Michaux is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux moves to amend the bill on page 4 line 27 by decreasing the amount by and. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House. I have heard a lot about this whole budget going through and what it's doing and how it's helping teachers and everything else involved. Yesterday, I was struck by Representative Dollar's indication that we were sitting over here on our hands, basically doing nothing, not making any contributions. I've heard arguments also on both sides about using the $106 million that is allegedly, and I say allegedly, coming from the lottery. Let me tell you a little bit about that having had some experience with that. When we came in in 2007 there was a shortfall in the lottery budget for which money had been spent of $205 million. We did make that money up, but we had to do some hard stuff on top of being in the midst of a recession. Right now the force is now trying to pull me back from offering this amendment because of that particular, but I'm not going to argue with you about the gambling part about it. I think that if you all wanted to get rid of the lottery than you had an opportunity and you still have

opportunity to get rid of it but you're building on it and I'm not building on it with this amendment. What this amendment simply does, it takes 102 million dollars and increases, it increases the amount of teachers from the average of 5% that you have put in there to an average of 7.4%, 7.4% with 102 million dollars added. To give an example, if you look at the schedule that you have on that, on the budget, if you look to year 9 where it says, your budget says $3445 on the monthly basis it shifts that $3445 to item number 4, actually item number 6 to $3445. In other words it moves it up and as you go down that schedule the largest increase for any step in there would be 17.2%, the lowest would be 4.6%. Now, you ask me, "well, it's going to cost 102 million dollars more. Where is the money coming from?" First of all we take 17 million from the Medicaid fund that you've set up. That 117 million, which is a guesstimate as to what you're doing there, you're leaving 100 million there. The Governor didn't have but 50 million in his budget for that. So we're taking 17 million from there. We are taking approximately 21 million dollars from JDIG by, very simply, back failing JDIG, making what's there now, which is recurring money, making that nonrecurring, putting that 21 million in there and then the money is still there but it becomes nonrecurring money and when you come back you can put that money back in there. Also, let me remind you that things could have been done even now because you're looking at, you put 36 million dollars in the rainy day fund which runs that fund up to approximately 749 million dollars in the rainy day fund. Some of that, you don't need that much money in the rainy day fund. We haven't spent that kind of money since I don't know when on the rainy day fund. The big chairs could have really taken some of that money and put it in to raise these teachers pay more with basically recurring money. But, here again, I digress. There are other items in here but the bottom line is that what this amendment does is simply raises the teachers to an average of 7.4% with only 102 million dollars added to what you've already got there. I move the adoption of the amendment. Mr. Speaker, just as an addition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I just got a note that this is real money not funny money. [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] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, in reviewing this amendment I certainly can appreciate the skill and the creativity of a former Senior Chair of the Appropriations Committee. It is well evident in this amendment but I would point out a couple of items to your attention. One, as the gentleman correctly stated, this does continue to build on what this House has adopted with respect to additional revenues from the lottery and I appreciate that but it concerns me deeply. This amendment would take needed funds from conservation. It would take needed funds from pending legislation in this House so I don't know how we would fund bills that we intend to pass in this House without this money. And there are four particular areas that concern me that this bill would take money from. It would take it from our emergency funds. It would take all the funds from the emergency fund. It would take 17 million dollars from risk reserve which is there to make

sure that we can pay the bills, medical bills, for our most vulnerable citizens in this state. It would take 13.6 million dollars from unemployment insurance. As you know those are funds that we use to pay people who are unemployed and it would take 21 million dollars from jobs and JDIG. Mr. Speaker, if I might be recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move that the amendment do lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion having been made by Representative Dollar, seconded by Representative Burr. The question before the House is the motion to lie upon the table the amendment sent forth by Representative Michaux to the House Committee Substitute #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, 66 having voted in affirmative, 45 in the negative. The motion passes. We are now, there are no more amendments. We are back on the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. Representative Queen, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] After that vote I was hoping I'd get to vote on something that was really going to make a difference but I want to say I do appreciate what this body has done to restore some important items back in our budget. Teaching fellows, I appreciate that. Masters pay, I appreciate that. MCAT[?], I appreciate that. Restoring the historic renovation tax credits, I appreciate that. Much good is in this budget. What's missing is jobs, a focus on jobs and real recovery. The budget we're under now that we're hear in this short session to fix cut over 5200 teaching positions, over 3800 teaching assistants positions. This fix doesn't cut any more teaching assistants, unlike the Senate's budget, but it does cut 788 teachers. Tens of thousands of education jobs have been cut by this General Assembly. I'm thankful we're stopping the hemorrhage but we're a long way from fixing the problem. What's the real situation in jobs in this state? We heard a lot about the unemployment numbers. There are 33,000 fewer jobs today, in this state, than there were a year ago. The jobs we have are lower wage. Lower wage jobs that have been created by a vast majority. Fewer jobs and lower wage jobs. That's a long way from home. But the elephant in the room is that this General Assembly continues to deny 2 billion dollars of our citizens' federal tax dollars to come back into our state, into our economy, to help our people, by expanding Medicaid. These are our tax dollars for our people. That's a loss of 20,000 good healthcare jobs, 400 of them in my district. My district, Haywood, Jackson, and Swain. I would love to vote for this budget if we could focus on our people, on our jobs, and real recovery. I would love to work with each and every one of you for that. This river[?] reminds me of an old boy who

came in my Sunday school class. He was out of jail. He quit beating his wife. We circled around him, a word of prayer, we want to support you. We want you to amount to something. We do. A while got up hopeful, looking for a new day to amount to something. I said, "brother, you're in the fold now but your cousin over there, across the road, is not repenting. He's still wayward. Together, together, let's go over and bring him in the fold and hopefully we all can amount to something." That's where we are and I hope the next two weeks can make a difference for North Carolina and I could actually vote for this budget. Today I will hold my powder dry. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I might ask, if Representative Queen would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, I may have misheard you but, as I believe you're aware, are you not aware that this budget makes no cuts to teaching assistants and makes no cuts to teachers, in fact raises average teacher salary by 5%? Did I mishear what you said earlier? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate your efforts in that direction. What I said was we cut 788 teaching positions. I refer to, what is it, I have to put my glasses on, F3, page F3, number 13, revise adjustments made in the 2013 to reduce the classroom teacher allocations in the second and third grade from one teacher per 18 students to one per 17. This adjustment will forego an additional 788 new teaching positions added. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield for another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You realize that that provision does not reduce the number of actual teachers in the classroom it forestalls an increase in the number of teaching positions but it does not, in any way, cut existing teacher positions in the classroom. Are you not aware of that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I listened to you and others brag on adding 788 teachers last year while we cut 5200 and now cut those 788 we added. So I'm just letting the public know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So the gentleman's not aware. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a heavy heart today because you've just been offered by a master, a master at appropriations, an opportunity to incorporate at least part of this substantial things and items into this budget. Instead we choose to gamble on gambling. We're not just gambling but we are gambling on gambling. Now I got two lottery tickets that cook a house but didn't pay off. I used to live in Washington, D.C. when they first implemented the lottery for education. Within three years I watched the appropriations budget diminish. The line approp-, it was supposed to be for all the extras that were going to happen in the school system and I watched every year the decrease in the money from the general budget going in to it to the point that it was almost solely relying upon the lottery. Then I saw the lottery make no money one year and I saw the scrambling and everybody trying to figure, "oh, what we gonna do, what we gonna do, what we gonna do?" But even D.C.

he didn't gamble on gambling anymore. All I'm saying to you is let's look at this again. Let's look at other ways, some creative ways. Come across the aisle and ask for some help from a master and see what we could do. But where this bill stands now, I can't gamble on gambling. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Holley a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, are you not aware that the amendment offered by Representative Michaux would also have built upon the lottery as we have it in this budget? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not at the rate what we're doing, and I am aware. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you not aware that it would have built on exactly what we have in the budget? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I'm not aware. I see some substantial things in here. I don't see fuzzy math. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm trying to find the member who's ri-, oh sorry, Representative Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm looking at Mason's Legislative Manual, section 253, number 5, which says the presiding officer should never permit a speaker to be heckled by questions nor permit a member to present arguments under the guise of questions. I would contend that the gentleman from Wake, Representative Dollar, is edging mighty close to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair would observe that over the course of the last seven hours of debate on the budget that there have been a few members have gone mightily close to that. Representative Insko, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If we compare the House budget to the Senate budget we all can come up with a lot of things that are a lot better. I'm not comparing the House budget to the Senate budget. I'm comparing the House budget to what could have been. I'm comparing the House budget to what should have been. You all talk a lot about living within our means. We have to live within our means. The problem is you gave away our means. You cut taxes too fast, too much too fast, and to balance that out what you did was cut into the very bones and meat of our society. You made unprecedented cuts to education, pre-K through the university system. The future of our state. The future of our children. You precipitated an unprecedented exodus of our best teachers from the state and from the profession of teaching. This budget doesn't fix that. It will take us a long time to fix that. Not only did you make unprecedented cuts in our programs and in our revenue stream in order to give tax breaks to our wealthiest, who are already privileged, you raised taxes on the neediest. You did that by repealing the earned income tax credit. That's a tax increase on our poor people. You did it by changing the tax code so that you are now taxing services that effect our middle and low income families, it won't bother wealthy people. You also took the unprecedented step of uncoupling our state income tax from the federal tax. You took away the deduction for medical expenses. It impacts our poor and our seniors the most. I got Grover's letter this year. I have opposition. I read that letter. It asked me to pledge not to raise taxes. It didn't ask me to pledge to cut taxes. I'm going to vote no on this budget because we can do better. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Insko would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insko, does the lady yield?

No thank you. [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. May I ask a couple questions first of Representative Dollar, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry, if the lady would please restate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to ask a couple questions of Representative Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Dollar. You say that the average increase is 5% and I’ve had a number of calls from teachers including my daughter who’s been teaching a while. And I have a chart which shows basically the more years, the less increase. So how is the 5% an average? [SPEAKER CHANGES] When you average all of the increases together, those increases come to an average of 5%. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So there are some cases where teachers who have been teaching longer will actually get less than 5%. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Depending on where an individual is on the scale, you can look on the scale and see is that above 5%, below 5%. Obviously one of the things that we have done in this budget is to increase starting salaries for teachers. We decided and made a commitment several months ago to address one of the most pressing problems that we have in education in this state, and that is we have been observing for a while that our schools of education have been dropping in terms of folks coming into those schools of education. We’re very concerned about starting teachers’ salaries being low in this state. And we knew that that needed to be moved up. So the governor and the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker joined together and did a lot of work and we made a commitment that over the next two years we are moving starting teacher pay up to $35,000 and obviously since it had been frozen previously as you recall because I believe you were part of the appropriations committee at the time it was frozen, they had an impact over a number of years, so there’s a number of years they have to be caught up, not simply the first year that a teacher would be brought in. So what this budget does is it moves the first step of two steps to move starting teacher pay up and we next year we’ll get it up, when we do our budget we’ll get it up to the minimum of $35,000 a year. And we will also be moving up other steps as well and we’ll have the scale that moves up and as you obviously the representative is well aware this is the teacher pay scale that you all had frozen and that we are unfreezing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Another question, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, when you look at the proposal for funding the salaries, the lottery, what happens if, if we don’t, if that bet doesn’t come through? If we don’t raise those moneys? How do we pay for it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thank the lady for the question, because it allows me to clarify something. We put the figure in the budget and the lottery has to turn that money over. This is not speculative with respect to the state’s budget. We already rely on and have for many, many years as again, as an appropriations person you are well aware of this, up to right now at 220 million dollars in salaries of teachers are paid for year after year after year from the lottery. So we have taken the numbers from them. We ask the lottery the question, how can we maximize the education dollars to the state of North Carolina, and this was the proposal after their professional consideration that they came back to us with. But we will have that money. It is recurring money. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One final question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In terms of the advanced degrees, and I’ve read this budget and I’ve asked questions in the appropriations committee but I’m still not clear about a person who pursues a Masters degree or even beyond that and if it’s not in their area of teaching, whether or not

Speaker 1: They will be paid. It is not clear to me. Speaker 2: One of the concerns that had been raised for some time was that an individual, let’s say a teacher in Mathematics, if that teacher is pursuing a general education Master’s, the concern was how does that truly impact the students, the children, in the classroom. What our provision proposes to do is to ensure that an individual is getting paid for an expertise that they can actually bring back into the subject area in the classroom. So, we want a Mathematics teacher to get a Master’s in Math, because we believe that if they pursue a Master’s in Math, we should pay them more because we know they can take those additional skills, that additional knowledge and bring it into the classroom to benefit the students, because it is really about the students. Speaker 1: Thank you for your answers. Representative Dolman, speak on the Bill. Speaker 3: The lady has the floor to debate on the Bill. Speaker 4: Thank you and I still have these concerns. I thank Representative Dolof for responding to my questions. Yes I did serve under Representative Shore on the appropriations committee. So, I do understand the hard work that goes into this. So I just want to thank those who worked on the budget because I have been there, and I know what it takes. It was a long day yesterday. I do not intend to prolong the discussion, but I did have to ask those questions because I have had teachers talking to me, especially my daughter, who has been teaching now for 17 years. So, listening to the response from Representative Dolof, she is not going to benefit much 2% for her. So, I just want to talk a little about the details of the budget because, as far as I am concerned, the devil is in the details. I have heard from a lot of teachers, a lot of educators, who want a competitive, including our state employees. They want to return to the original steps. They want career status, technology, and all those things, but they want their tenure too, and they need it. While the budget does provide for raises, which is a good thing, it still concerns me that they are not sustainable. There are a lot of refunds and if they are not raised, the result may be that they will not be given. We have to honor the promises we make to our teachers, to our state employees, so I suspect that the plan will be that the needed services that our citizens have right now, some they don’t have, will be cut. So, it gives me concern as to how exactly the state will address this. I have not heard anything definitive, other than the fact that the lottery commission stated that they could do this, but we do not know because that will depend on the people who will invest. I never bought a lottery ticket – I have no interest. Yes, I voted for the lottery – for those who want to do it. I just believe that people ought to make decisions themselves about what they want to do, including what they want to do with their bodies – as it relates to women. Now, Representative Michelle had a good proposal before us. We talk about the emergency fund, but I think what we have before us is an emergency. Now, several of the details concern me, particularly as it relates to due process. First year teachers, yes they will get a raise, but I think that when you go into a job, yes you look for salary, but you also look for benefits. They are going to be looking for whether or not there is going to be some longevity for them. We have, basically, removed a due process for those beginning teachers, who not only deserve a raise, like other teachers, but they deserve due process as well. We tried to present an amendment on yesterday, and it is on the table with a lot of other stuff. So the table is pretty heavy right now. Minimally, we did not do what we could have done, even for the beginning teachers. You shouldn’t have to exchange your tenure for a raise, having recently retired just two years ago, I cannot think of any job or business where you work and gain years of experience, and those things are not counted… Speaker 5: Mr. Speaker… Speaker 4: I will yield when I… Chairman: The chair will redirect…

To the floor, for what purpose does this lady rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady may serve point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is tenure mentioned in the budget as being given up in succession for a raise? I think she may be arguing the Senate budget instead of the House budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady's point is well taken. That particular point is not in the budget. The lady still has the floor. Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also have raised the point about advanced degrees, master's degrees, PhD degrees, etc., and what it really means in this budget, and from what I've seen and from the answers that I have received, you don't, if you don't get the degree in your teaching area, you still don't get paid. Now let me give you an example. My daughter teaches second grade. She's been teaching for 17 years and just pursued her, well, she got her master's degree in reading a couple of years ago. Now, she's not going to be impacted here because she already has it, but I'm thinking about the beginning teachers that may want to do this. Teachers who are just going into the field who may teach for a while in one of the earlier grades and who may want to pursue a master's degree outside of that. But I don't think we should be dictating that, because, for example, even if they're teaching second or third grade and then they decide that they want to be a reading specialist, for example, they should have an opportunity to do that. And the last disturbing detail, and it appears that we may have addressed some of that today, but again I'm really concerned about not only what we say, but what we do, so I'm hoping the amendment that passed, Representative Blackwell's amendment, relative to Fayetteville State, Elizabeth City State, excuse me, is really going to serve that university well. I just want to remind all the members of this body and those who will be working on that particular issue that student debt has increased over 400% over the past 25 years, and there's a national problem, there's a problem in our state. The outstanding student loan debt now amounts to more than $1.2 trillion, so it's not just an education issue, it's an economic issue for them. Whether or not they can buy a home or do other kind of things that we expect our young people to do once they leave school. And for students who attend HBCUs, and I have special concern because I'm a graduate twice of one, I spent 40 years on the campus, I've been at college and I can tell you that students that attend HBCUs in this state accumulate more than $6,400 a year in debt, leaving college with about $25,000. So that debt should at least say to us that they need financial aid, because a large number of these students are first generation college students, a large number of them, 80 to 90% at these schools, are on financial aid. So I just wanted to make these comments today and to just clarify so that we are not misleading our teachers and other folk who think that they are going to get a 5% raise, all of them will get that. And I'm not sure that this in incentive enough to not only attract them, but to keep them, especially our teachers that are experienced. Why would they stay? You've put 17, 18 years in the system. You still aren't going to get a decent raise. They want you to give up your tenure, and I know that's maybe not worded in this bill, but that's what it means. Job security, that's what it's about. We all have it. We all want it. We all need it. Thank you very much for the work that you've done on this bill, but I'm not going to be able to support it again today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if the lady would yield. If Representative Adams would yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I'll yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Adams. Are you aware or recall back in 2009, between 2009 and 2010, that the money in the lottery that was going to teacher's salaries was increased from $99 million to the $220 million, an increase of $121 million. I believe you were one of the chairs of the Appropriations Committee when that happened. Are you aware of that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. Thank you for reminding me of that, but also let me say that there was a recession, and I'm sure you know that. Thanks very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And a follow up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield to a follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes.

Yes I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate the lady’s recollection. I also would like to ask another point here. Are you aware that if you go all the way back to 2001, the beginning of this century, that there’s only been one raise – one raise – for teachers in the last 14 years, in which the average exceeded five percent? And I believe that was ’06, ’07. So you’re aware that our raise in this budget is as high as any raise in the last 14, 15 years except for one year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate that. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Adams would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I’ll yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, I listened to the interesting exchange between you and Representative Dollar, and let’s… I’m just wondering from the same experience, are you aware that throughout most of the time in the 2000s until the recession, each and every year there were teacher raises? Is that not accurate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is accurate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In fact, the last three years there’s only been a 1.2 percent raise one time. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are correct again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And so that it would be unfair at the extreme to make a comparison about a one year five percent raise when there were decades of three, four and five percent raises. Would that be accurate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is accurate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Glazier would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] He does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Glazier. In speaking of being aware of a lot of things, you’re aware… or how much do you recall? Let’s see if you recall how many hundreds of millions of dollars were cut out of the education budget that you voted for in 2009. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, I’m really glad you asked that question. There were literally close to a billion dollars as I recall that we cut because we were facing, as you’ll recall, within a month and a half of the global recession that nearly put this country into a depression, a 40 percent cut in the revenue of this state, and the only thing that made this state survive was a balanced approach of filling that gap by making cuts, by adding temporary revenue, and by the stimulus money from Washington, and that combination was done to save the state. That combination was done when the entire country and the entire world were in a global recession of unprecedented magnitude – something that does not exist now and has not existed the last several years to anything like the approach that existed in 2009 and 2010, and I can tell you Representative Dollar, if you wish me to, every single line item we cut back then in the 80 days we spent going through it because of what had to be done. No one knows more or hurt more than what we had to do, but what we had to do as a body in 2009 bears no resemblance to choices we make today in 2014. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to a follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Be delighted to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is delighted to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And so you are also aware that those funds from the federal government were temporary then and are no longer available to the state of North Carolina? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They have not been available to the state of North Carolina for several years – I think a two-year period. That’s correct, and so there was a need to begin preparing and filling in that gap with funds from the state of North Carolina. By the same token, the revenue has increased substantially since then compared to what we were facing with a 40 percent drop in 2009. I don’t recall there being a 40 percent drop in revenue in March and April of 2014. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One final follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do, Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, I will make this the… I will attempt to make this my last follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s fine, Representative Dollar, and I apologize for my tone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, no. You’re perfectly fine; you do quite well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair is enjoying this chitchat but we’d prefer that the chitchat is directed through the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, motion for a group hug? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields for a follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. So Representative Glazier, your solution would be, and as I recall a couple of years ago, your solution was, and so your solution a couple of years…

Here’s a guy who was to retain the one cent sales tax, to retain the increase in the sale tax. Is that still your position that you would raise sales taxes or raise other taxes for the purposes of the budget? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. Actually my position then was a combination, as you’ll recall. And it wasn't mine. It was the body’s position. We did a number of things. There was a temporary sales tax raised. There was a temporary raise on the high income bracket. There was, as I said, close to $1.8 billion one year in cuts, and over $1.3 billion in cuts the next year. There was the Obama stimulus package, which was, as I recall, the majority was opposed to, but which probably saved the state, that we incorporated in. And we planned ahead for the following year, as well. As to what existed then versus what I would do now, I think Representative Insko talked about that. And I think I talked about it on the floor last night. Now, my caucus hasn’t adopted the approach I would adopt, but one of the things that seems utterly clear is the tax package that was enacted last year created an enormous gap, more than the majority prepared for, and that’s fine. These things are hard to predict. But sometimes you have to admit that. And in my case, I certainly would have looked back, at least, at rolling back, to some degree, a portion of that in order to deal with what we were having to do this year, because the numbers have come in showing that you had that 500 million dollar gap. So, sometimes you have to react in the governances you know to the circumstances that you have on things that you didn’t predict and maybe couldn’t have predicted. And so, my plan would have been very different. But the one thing I know I wouldn’t do, in this case, is what was done in terms of the sustainability of the key component of our economy and that is paying our teachers and our work force on a recurring manner and getting them up to the national average within four years. There is nothing in this budget that steers us fully in that direction. And that is what concerns me the most, as I stated. But if you wanted to know, and tried to compare what we did in 2009, I will be glad to talk about that all day long, but it is different circumstances today. Then, almost no choice. And, by the way, if you look back at the budget, not a bit of help from the other side. In our committees we did. But when it came to the floor, you’ll remember, and go back and look. And so, when you’re trying to deal with a $3 to $4 billion deficit, with no help from the other side, you do the best you possibly can. And that was what was done. Today is different. Today we make choices. Then, there were limited choices. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have the floor, right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor unless the gentleman is making a point, a point of order inquiry. The gentleman may say this inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if, just because the Speaker’s enjoying this chitchat, does that require me, as a member of the House, to also enjoy it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not by any means. Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, would Representative Glazier yield for another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, I’m not going to yield, but not because, but because I’m trying to listen to what Representative Dixon just had to say. And I think our discussion about what happened in 2009 and trying to compare it to what’s happening in 2014 really [SPEAKER CHANGES] The only, Representative Glazier, the question is whether or not the gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may speak on the budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Just to put things in perspective. Let’s go back before the recession, 2003, 4, 5, 6, 7, all pre-recession. And the basic structural problem that we have now corrected, but was there in 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 is that for those five budgets in a row this assembly passed budgets that doubled the increase in population plus inflation. So, if that increase in a particular year was 4%, the assembly decided that we would increase spending 8%. When it was 5% population plus inflation, we increased it 10%. And when you do that five years in a row, you get yourself in a mess. And, thank goodness, the last three years we have taken prudent, fiscal steps to build our reserves, to get spending in line, and to get our tax policy where it’s not based where it was for those 5, 6, 7, 8 years on inordinate taxes on the poor through the sales tax. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, please state your purpose.

Speaker: May i debate the bill Mr.Speaker, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill as amended, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr.Speaker thank you ladies and gentlemen and house,i believe i have the privilege of serving for years this is my sixth term i don't think that i have actually spoken on that passage of the budget before but as i listened to this debate it occurred to me we often talk about the glass b and half full vs glass b and half empty and i have listened to the ?? of the budget.It seems that the only thing that they can criticize is the glass shape it's not even in there it's few little small things that we may have chosen to do a little bit differently i do think it's worth and i try to respect the fact that speaker has assigned me and i ll take the responsibilities on finance house of the side very seriously ?? there are things needs to be addressed.The gentlemen from Haywood stood up and he talked about jobs and now the jobs have changed,i just wanna share you a number.According to the bureau of labor statistics ?? North Carolinian's went to work which is the highest number in the history of state of North Carolina were people working in any time of the history of state in North Carolina ?? currents of these remarks would say were the labor forces is smaller.According to the bureau of labor statistics that's correct,I don't know why i guess people from substantial ?? they may actually retire ?? yes that's unfortunate.This history of assembly in the past four years ?? getting people what they needs in orders of able to live up to their fullest ?? again this ill end up this part of remarks.The gentlemen from Haywood talked about more folks go to work in this budget and our priority ?? going to work.I just shared the April 2011 unemployment rate and Haywood county was 9.8 percent,the most recent number showing up 5 percent,Jackson county with 9 percent and in 2011 it's 5.2 percent and ? county was 14.3 percent it's 8 and a half person today, Speaker Changes: Before allowed to talk about ?? because we do not let the extend the ?? credit.Let me talk little bit about that.In 2007 a different majority of the house in substitute ?? and i think they have good prohibitions when they did so.One of those intentions was to address the North Carolina fax code was ?? provided success,provided B in able to move ahead because the more you earn and listen i m talking about my rich folks here because our tax break was in so where near 20 mark started painting tax rate higher in state we did have earned income tax credit.In 2012 because we not have addressed the tax, Speaker Changes: Mr.Speaker, Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state you purpose, Speaker Changes: ?? this gentlemen makes status point, Speaker Changes: By earning some tax credit in this budget, Speaker Changes: The underlying tax policy i thing it has been debated by several people on the floor.The income tax credit has been brought up by almost 2 dozen over the course across last 8 hours of debate,the gentlemen may proceed, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr.Speaker and quickly proceed what we have done is to make steps to make sure that you can earn more income in the state and ever before,before your subject happened to have any other tax by the state even increased the child's credit lower income.We tried to take steps that is appropriate to help citizens regardless of their economic conditions i wont even the speaker was ?? let me personally yell to my friends and admonishment and talk about this budget that we are all about,

To vote on. This budget which sets the minimum starting salary for teachers at $33,000 per year and does provide an average of 5% raise for school teachers, one of my very distinguished colleague points out, not everybody gets 5%, that's what average means. Some get more, some get less. This budget provides $1,000 salary increase, not a one time bonus, a salary increase for most state employees, and there's benefits on top of that, which puts it somewhere around $1,250. Is that enough for many of our state employees, how hard they work? And as Representative Dobson pointed out yesterday, that many are in harm's way. No. But is it more than they've been getting? Yes. It's a step in the right direction. I could go through a long list of things, but I wanted to stand up on the floor and let Representative Dollar and Representative Burr and Representative Johnson and all the chairs of the Appropriations Committee and all the members that have worked, both sides of the aisle. This is a good budget, this is a manageable budget, this is a budget that shows that we have priorities on educating our citizens and on lifting our state up and moving forward. I would urge you. I would urge you not to peek around the corners hoping you can find something bad, but to look at this good bill that's before you and vote for it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the budget bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the budget as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, Representative Duane Hall said this is your budget, and I was watching him and noted that he was clearly looking toward the other side of the aisle, and that meant to me that I thought he was talking to the entire majority. I'm not sure that was who he needed to be talking with. I believe he should have been talking with the Senior Appropriations Chair and the other big chairs. Make not mistake about it, this is not a committee function budget, and I can speak to it mainly from the point of view of NER since that's the subcommittee on which I serve. We had one meeting, we partially reviewed the Senate budget, we were told we would meet the next day to continue our budget work and we didn't meet. And day three we me and we were presented the Cliff Notes version of the budget, that part pertains to NER. We met a good portion of that day and had a chance to offer amendments and then the budget was voted out of committee. I will never say that that process was something brought on us by Chairs Murry and West. It's my full belief that the budget product came down from the big chairs and was handed over with the instruction to move it. Now, I don't know what that meant in your Appropriations Subcommittee, but I'll tell you what it meant in NER. For one thing, it meant that Representative Langdon, with his 10 years of NER experience, didn't get much of a chance to input what was in that portion of the budget. It meant that Representative Reives, 10 years NER experience, no chance. It meant that

Representative Wilkins, with probably much less thinking capacity than those other two, didn't get a chance to really input the NER budget. And then yesterday on the floor Chairman Dollar, a friend of mine, a classmate of mine, Chairman Dollar asked us all to soldier on by voting for this budget. Well, I was ready to start soldiering a few days back when I thought we were really going to get to input the NER budget but I never got that opportunity. So Representative Dollar, if I may, and to all the big chairs, I will tell you that your process from my point of view was poor but you didn't invent it. I arrived here in 2005 and I've got to tell you that with democrats in charge in 2007 the process was just as bad and I got just as little opportunity to input that budget in NER as I did this one. To another point, some folks in my caucus have chosen to support this budget and I've heard it and you've heard it, everybody-, not everybody, some folks around the building say, "oh they are a totally divided caucus." No, I'll tell you what we are. We're a totally diverse caucus and I will defend every one of those folks who cast a yea vote yesterday and I will defend their right to do exactly what they did. Now, to our big chairs, I say it's your turn to soldier on. You know what comes next. You've got to be more than obstinate Senate. Please get in there and soldier on and represent this House. No I didn't vote for this yesterday, I don't plan to vote for it today, but I have the right to ask you to soldier on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would Representative Wilkins yield for one quick question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You do not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I speak a second time on the- [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the budget as amended a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A couple points. First, the process is what the process is. We have 87 amendments in the full Appropriations Committee. A few were withdrawn, a few were ruled out of order, a few, many passed. To say that there is no process for changing the budget is just, doesn't fit the facts. But I want to ask you to do a thought experiment. I would like to appeal to those who voted no to consider this thought experiment. Suppose, counter-factually, that we had a republican senate that had adopted the budget they had adopted. That wasn't counter-factual, that's true. But suppose that this body was majority democratic. And suppose you had to come up with a budget to submit to the Senate in a divided House. I submit that the budget that you have before right today, with a few minor exceptions on social policy, is probably exactly the budget you would have presented if you were in the majority today. Please admit it and vote for it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Dollar a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, you said something a few minutes ago about the lottery money and I want to be clear on this. I got from what you said that the funds, that 106 million dollars will be coming from the lottery whether they raise it or not. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The, let me explain it. The funds that are put into the budget from the lottery are committed from the lottery to the budget. So if their sales do not

Grow quite as much as they anticipate that those sales will grow based on their formulas, based on their professional judgement that they have given to us, then we, the state, will still take its dollar figure from the lottery. And that is currently the way it operates, it is operating no different than the way it has operated. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another question, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] From what I'm hearing then, is that in effect if that money is not raised because of the increase in advertising, that the money is still coming to support the teachers in the amount that you put in the budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another follow up, then. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So how is that money made up if it doesn't come in at the amount that was supposed to have been raised was not raised. What's going to be cut as a result of that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They would have to take it out of their prizes at some point in time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But, as you know, you've looked at, I'm sure you've looked at the lottery, and particularly if you've looked at it in detail, you know that for a number of years we've actually been getting, you know we always get these extras that come in. Particularly over the past number of years we've kind of gotten a low figure. We have, we are very confident, in fact there was some thought to say, OK let's just tell the lottery we want another $100 million and do it that way, but we felt that it was appropriate to talk to the lottery and say give us your professional assessment, your professional judgement on what you could do to increase revenues from the lottery for education because it is supposed to be the education lottery. And I think a number of our members have expressed concern over the years that, as you recall when the lottery was first passed, I believe the promise was 34, 35% of the gross revenues of the lottery would come to education in the state, and of course as you are well aware, we're now down in the mid-20's in terms of the actual percentage of gross receipts that are coming to education, and I think that has concerned a number of people that if we are going to have the lottery and it is going to be sold as an education lottery then it should be, we should have those funds coming in. It should be going to education. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the budget a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You did the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair apologizes, this is the first time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And this will probably be the only time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, this has been a long and grueling fight and I will admit to you that you have done a great job on the other side because you took what came to you and sort of tried to straighten folks out on the other side. I just hope maybe some way you can stick with it, but that remains to be seen. But let me correct two things before I get into that. Representative Dollar in his remarks on laying my amendment on the table stated that I had rated the money from Jdig and that had taken it out. I did not take the money out, Representative Dollar. That money was changed from non-recurring, from recurring to non-recurring, which left the money in there for this year, which meant that the money was still there and that you'd have to come back and put it back in next year. So we didn't take the money out there. The second thing, the other thing was the $17 million comes from your estimate of the monies needed ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Shaw the Chair would remind the member that he is debating an amendment that has already been disposed of and should get back to ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm doing that to get to my point in the budget, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker. I'm just trying to get that cleared up because I don't want. But let me say this about this budget. It's a budget that could have been much better had we had the opportunity to do the things that we needed to do on that on this side. The budget could have been much better if there had been total cooperation between both sides of this. There has been no way that we could've put

… to things unless we came in and there was an idea that we have got what we need, we don’t need any more ideas on this, and basically every amendment except some amendments that really didn’t affect the budget to that extent were really ruled out of order or were really voted down or laid on the table, all of these things, and that’s one of the reasons I think when we talk about the process, the process has not been… The one thing I liked about the process that we had when we did it, we kept it open. We really kept it open. The committees met, they got their targets and they went within their targets. We had the full appropriations committee meetings. If we had to run over, we ran over. We didn’t rush anything at all and that’s how we worked at it. This wasn’t done that way. I walked in one morning and found the budget on my chair, then I went to committee meeting and we talked about it in committee, and then we came to the floor on it. I don’t think we had really enough time to come back and really do the things that we needed to do. I’m going to right now – I did it yesterday – I’m going to vote against this budget and see what happens. We know that you’re going to pass it. There’s no question about it. Even if we had folks on our side who ??, there’s no question in my mind that you’re going to pass this budget with or without us, so what I’m doing is I’m going to vote against the budget to give you an opportunity to try to do something a little bit better than what you’ve already got out there, for you might be able to get a little bit more money for the teachers, you might be able to get a little bit more money for state employees, so in the conference committee that’s coming up, you have that opportunity to do it. I’m going to vote no right now and see what comes out of that conference committee, and if anything comes out of that conference committee, there’s the possibility that some of us over here who are voting no may change our minds, but right now we are just not satisfied with the process, we are not satisfied with the fact that better things could have been done, and we are moving from that point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Normally I don’t speak on the budget but I heard a lot of information thrown around. I want very briefly to give you two numbers – little math problems. If you’ll divide the amount of lottery funds that apparently appear in the budget, the maximum amount, you’ll see it’s three quarters of one percent of the budget. All this debate about the lottery is over three quarters of one percent of the budget, and the funds apparently are guaranteed. Another math problem, we talked about tax increases, tax decreases. I got here just in time, 2009. In fact next week Representative Gill and I have an anniversary of five years. I got here just in time to vote on the final – vote on the budget – and I voted against that budget. It had a tax increase to hardworking families and to middle class families – one percent sales tax increase – and a surcharge on anyone who paid income taxes. Someone said “high rollers” but I think it was anyone who paid income taxes in my recollection, which five years at my age could be faulty. Since then, in 2011, in three years, that sales tax expired in 2011, much to the consternation of then the minority and the Governor at that time, and a family of four, you take the billion dollars a year and save the families across this state, divide that by somewhat less than ten million people, you get 100 dollars a person. If the average family of four in three years has saves 12 hundred dollars on that one penny – 12 hundred dollars – so keep that in mind when you’re talking about a hundred dollar problem for families or whatever, it’s 12 hundred dollars, it’s divided out over three years, and that’s the savings an average family of four, everybody that buys anything, the average is 12 hundred dollars. Just two little math problems, perspective. That three quarter of one percent is the lottery we’re talking about. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ve heard many of you from the other side compliment us, which we appreciate, on some of the work that we’re done in the budget, yet follow that with a “but I can’t vote for it”, and…

then send us to do battle with the senate. It would be much, much easier for us to do battle with the senate if we had you with us, because you could reinforce with the senate what you feel is important, the part that you do like, and by all means be vocal on the part that you don't like. But for us to go to support our budget against the senate would not carry quite the power if you would guarantee that you're interested in what we're trying to do, in the approach and direction that we're trying to take for the citizens of North Carolina, and I would implore you to go to battle with us. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the House. We've had a tremendous debate and I will keep this very short. I do want to remind the body that we have utilized lottery funds before for teacher pay as we had mentioned in 2010, the amount increased from the lottery to teacher salaries was 121 million dollars that year, and no one seemed to raise a question about that. I would also note that as has been mentioned previously we've had some challenging years in the past, that members of the then-majority had to deal with. I would also remind them of course that in 2011 we had to deal with a 2.5 billion dollar hole in our budget, and we dealt with that, Didn't complain, we dealt with it. But I want to turn to where we are today, and here is where we are today. I believe that in all of the debate that I've heard on all sides, that the fundamental truth is that this is a sound budget. This budget does provide for the needs of our citizens. This budget does fund our highest priorities. This budget does provide a five percent increase for teachers and career pathways to move forward in how we're gonna compensate teachers in the future. This budget does provide salary increases for employees, risk reserves for Medicaid, expansions in critical areas that had been identified from guardianship on over to coal ash. You name it, we've tried to address the needs of our state. And I thought it was very interesting a non-partisan group, Public School Form, in analyzing the three budgets before the state at this time, the governor's, the Senate and the House, said that the House's budget was the most promising path forward. Members of this House, I believe that this budget before you today is the most promising path forward. I appreciate deeply the bipartisan support that we received yesterday on this budget, and I'd ask for everyone's vote again, on our budget today. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Hall 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, and once again I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I think we have about, we may finish about five minutes early if I'm the last speaker than what we projected, so I appreciate the speaker making sure we had a second day to debate, and we got some other bills done, and also some other amendments done. But I wanted to tell you a story about four people, and they're four people you probably know, and they're probably important in all of our lives, and we probably all met them and worked with them and had them work for us. This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done, the budget, and everybody was asked to do it, the legislature. Everybody was sure Somebody would do it. Anybody could've done it. Did

?? do it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was everybody's job. Everybody thought anybody could do it, but nobody realized that everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that everybody blamed somebody when nobody did what everybody could do. We're not at the end of this process, and so we all still have an opportunity to do what we should do to make these provisions in this budget that are better than the senate be adopted. And representative Wilkins I already talked about the hope, and I talked about it yesterday, that after going through a better process than the senate, that you would stand fast on what you worked, and the product that you created, as opposed to what the senate sent over here. A lot of ways to describe what came in here, but again, at least we had a process. I hope that everybody does what they can do, anybody will do what they're supposed to do, and that somebody will stand up for what we did in this conference committee. Although I'm not voting for this budget today, and I can't recommend people to vote for it: it's not the final product and I don't want to send the wrong signal: that I'm satisfied. I do know it's better than what the senate did, but there's a lot of work to be done and we don't want to send the wrong message. But again, I do ask that you value the work you've done and work hard in the conference committee to make improvements on what we have so it'll be something that comes back that I could support. Thank you mister speaker. [Speaker Changes] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] See if representative Hall will yield for a question. [Speaker Changes] Representative Hall, does the gentleman yield? [Speaker Changes] One question. [Speaker Changes] Regrettably no, mister speaker. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman probably received bipartisan support for that position. Further discussion, further debate. Have now the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute number 2 to senate bill 744 as amended on its third reading. All in favor vote 'aye,' all opposed vote 'no'. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lot machine record the vote: 77 have voted affirmative, 35 in the negative, the house committee substitute number 2 to senate bill 744 as amended has passed its third reading, the bill being grossed and returned to the senate by special message. Ladies and gentleman, because we're meeting on Friday, we will give you Monday off. There will be no session, there will be no skeleton session, it's not necessary, we will reconvene. Representative Moore will be adjourning and reconvening on 3 o'clock, I suspect there may be some committee meetings, so please pay attention to notices and announcements. Notices and announcements: Representative Iler, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] For an announcement. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [Speaker Changes] House transportation: full transportation will try once again to meet next week at 12 noon, in room 643. On Tuesday, that's Tuesday, 12 o'clock. [Speaker Changes] Representative Greer Martin, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] For a point of personal privilege, mister speaker. [Speaker Changes] The house will come to order. The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [Speaker Changes] Thank you very much, mister speaker. June 14th, 1775, 239 years ago tomorrow, was a momentous day in our nation's military history. Four months before representative Roger West shipped out to sea for the first time with the United States Navy, five months before representative George Cleveland called, "Fall in," at the first formation of the United States Marine Corps, 172 years before representative Craig Horn's air force finally got big enough to grow up and finally leave home and go out on its own, a fighting force whose ranks have included representatives Blackwell, both representatives Brawley, Faircloth, Floyd, Fulghum, Goodman, Michaux, Pierce, Szoka, Wilkins, and we even let John Blust in. And we may soon, I hope, add another soldier to our proud ranks. Mister speaker, representative Larry Hall's Marine Corps exists to perform amphibious operations, but I am talking about the force that accomplished the landings at Normandy 70 years ago last week, the greatest amphibious landing in...

Speaker 1: …world history. Representative Chris Whitmeyers, Air Force exists to provide air craft and skilled pilots, but I am talking about the force whose paratroopers, even when scattered by the U.S Air Force, still manage to form little groups of paratroopers and move out, and accomplish their airborne mission at Sicily, Salerno, Normandy, Holland, Panama, Granada, Iraq, and drop zones throughout the world. Members, 239 years ago was born the fighting force that, today, still keeps us safe at home and abroad. The force that fights our nation’s enemies around the world and protects us from nature’s ravagers at home. Two hundred, thirty-nine years ago, the people of the U.S. assembled in Congress had the wisdom and strength to create, what has become, the greatest fighting force to be seen in the world: the U.S. Army. Happy birthday and Hula. [audience clapping] Chair: Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. Hall: For announcement, Mr. Speaker/ Chair: The gentleman is recognized. Hall: Thank you Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to announce that the Democratic caucus will leave for a five minute caucus immediately following this in Room 1425. Chair: Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. Lucas: For a moment of personal privilege. Chair: The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. Lucas: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman, we have just concluded a very comprehensive budget process and I would note that it is on Friday the 13th, and it is a full moon. The predications are there will be another 35 years before we have a full moon on Friday the 13th. My real purpose for addressing this group is that Sunday of this week will be Father’s Day. We would like to wish everybody, all men, a Happy Father’s Day. [audience clapping] Chair: Representative Ramsey, please state your purpose. Ramsey: Mr. Speaker, a point of personal privilege. Chair: The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. Ramsey: Thank you Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. I want to give a bi-partisan shout out to Representative Michael Ray, his staff, Dean Eadman, Representative Joseph Queen, Andy Miller, on his staff, they were kind enough yesterday to go over to MC State and get the ice cream from Haley [xx] and bring it back to the body. Thank you for that. Just a reminder: June is dairy month, so enjoy your favorite dairy product. Chair: Representative Pierce, please state your purpose. Pierce: An announcement, Mr. Speaker. Chair: The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. Pierce: [inaudiblexx] we will have the Black Culture as soon as we adjourn. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Chair: Representative Stars, please state your purpose. Stars: For an announcement. Chair: The gentleman is recognized. Stars: The Republicans will have a caucus next Tuesday at 1:00, probably in Room 544. Chair: Further notices or announcements? Representative Hamilton, please state your purpose. Representative Lewis is recognized. Oh, I am sorry, Representative Lewis. Gentleman, the clerk will read. Clerk: House committee on insurance will not meet. The House Committee on Health and Human Services will meet Tuesday, June 17th at 10 am in 544 LOB. Chair: Representative Lewis is recognized. Lewis: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, subject to ratifications of bills, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referrals, bills and resolution, appointment of conferees, modification to the calendar, I move that the House do now adjourn and reconvene on Tuesday, June 17,, 2014, at 3pm. Chair: Representative Lewis moves, seconded by Representative West, subject to the ratification of bills and resolutions, received from the Senate, committee will receive the conference reports, committee reports, re-referrals, bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, reduction of bills and resolutions, and modifications to the calendar. The House does now adjourn to reconvene on Tuesday, June 17,, 2014, at 3pm, all in favor say aye [congregation: aye], all opposed say no. Aye’s have it. The House stands adjourned. Speaker: Motion to Representative Timore, House Bill 1120 is withdrawn from the committee, on rules and refers to committee on government.