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 | July 25, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The prayer will be offered by Representative Susan Martin. Members and visitors in the gallery please stand, and please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. SPEAKER CHANGES: Please join me in prayer. Heavenly Father, I thank you so much for this opportunity to gather in your name. And I thank you for all of the people who are represented here, and for our families, and for the protection that you have provided for us, continue to be with us. And Lord there is power in your words and I pray back to you your word. From 2 Chronicles 7:14: If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face, I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. And from Romans 15: May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and one mouth, you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And from Colossians 1:9: We have not stopped praying for you. We ask God to give you complete knowledge of his will and spiritual wisdom and understanding. We pray you will be strengthened with his glorious power, so you will have the endurance and patience you need, especially today. May you be filled with joy. Amen. SPEAKER CHANGES: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. SPEAKER CHANGES: Representative Moore is recognized. SPEAKER CHANGES: Mr. Speaker, the journal for Wednesday, July 24, 2013, has been examined and found to be correct. I move to approve this writ SPEAKER CHANGES: Representative Moore moves that the journal for July 24 be approved as written. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no. The aye's have it. The journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials, or papers addressed to the General Assembly of the House, ratification of bills and resolutions. The clerk will read. SPEAKER CHANGES: The Raleigh clerk quotes following bills due to the ratified ?? states new Governors' Senate Bill 103, an act to extend and amend the authority counties and cities have for special assessments. And Bill 402, an act to make base budget appropriations for current operations of state departments. And Bill 683, an act to create a safe harbor for victims of human trafficking and for prostituted minors. House Bill 135, an act to make adjustments to the fee schedule for permits for sanitary landfills. House Bill 293, an act amending the Secure and Fair Enforcement Mortgage Licensing Act. House Bill 321, an act to repeal the requirement that local governments develop and maintain solid waste management plan. And House Bill 522, an act to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States and North Carolina constitutions in the application of foreign law. House Bill 675, an act amending laws pertaining to the regulation of pharmacy technicians, pharmacy audits, and prescriptions. And the following bills need ratified ?? ?? ?? of Secretary of State. House Bill 491, an act directing the Lee County Sheriff to provide school resource officers to the Lee County Schools. House Bill 493, an act to authorize the town of Robbinsville to levy an occupancy tax. SPEAKER CHANGES: Introduction of bills and resolutions. The clerk will read. SPEAKER CHANGES: House Resolution 122, a House Resolution to amend the permanent rules of the house concerning office assignments. SPEAKER CHANGES: ?? Calendar present rule 32A.

Speaker: …calendar, house resolution 1022. The clerk will read. Clerk: House resolution 1022, house resolution amend the permanent rules of the house concerning office assignments the house resolves. Speaker: The house will come to order. Representative Hall, please state the purpose. Representative: To speak on the resolution. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized to debate the resolution. The house will come to order. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker for the introduction. This is a resolution that we are making to the current house rules. This resolution will allow the members to have full control of their offices, who has access to their offices, and to ensure that anyone who wants to access your office knows that you are the person that they would need to see. The other people who would have access to the office would obviously be the legislative staff, the maintenance personnel, and the repair personnel, and the police. We do have an amendment, if I could send for an amendment? Speaker: The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. Clerk: Representative Hall moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 14 by rewriting the line to read. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. This ensures that there is consistency in the bill and the resolution such that it recognizes that joint legislative employees in both sections will be consistent, and a joint legislative employees include legislative service personnel and other folks on the staff as well, as I have said, including the maintenance and repair and cleaning personnel. It would also include the legislative special police. As you all know you have panic buttons in your office for situations that might happen – certainly they will be allowed to come into the office spaces as well. So I would urge your support on the resolution to the rules, and your support on the amendment. Speaker: Further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the house is the adoption of the amendment set forth by Representative Larry Hall for house resolution 1022. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The members may walk, the chair will wait. The clerk will lock and record the vote: 111 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes and we are now back on the bill. Representative Hall is recognized to debate the resolution as amended. Representative: Again Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear on the space. It allows you again to be responsible for and know who has access to your office spaces and anyone who needs access to your office space will know they can go through you and get the appropriate permission. Further discussion, further debate on the resolution? If not, the question before the house is house resolution 1022 as adopted. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock and record the vote: 113 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. House resolution 1022 has been adopted. House bill 669, the clerk will read. Clerk: Senate committee substitute for house bill 669, a bill has planned active to the point persons to various public offices upon the recommendation of the speaker of the house of representatives and the [xx] of the senate. Speaker: Representative Moore, please state your purpose. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker and members of the house, this is the appointments bill where the appointments for the protim and the speaker that we …

Every year, would urge the body’s support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 669, the Senate Committee Substitute, or the motion to concur. All in favor vote Aye, all opposed vote No. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] All members please record. Representative Johnson. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 112 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the House has concurred and the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 669, the bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. House Bill 727, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for House Bill 727, a bill to be entitled an act to allow the Division of Motor Vehicles to issue a salvage certificate of title to an insurance company or used car dealer in certain situations where the insurance company or used car dealer is unable to obtain the original certificate of title from the owner of the motor vehicle. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clerk will read the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabin moves to on page 1, line 22 by deleting the phrase. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for a motion, and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We had I believe a unanimous vote on this, when it was in the House earlier. We are in favor of the amendment, which was I believe an amendment that was requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and would urge your support. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion is the motion to concur in Senate Amendment number 2. All those in favor of the motion to concur in the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 727 will vote Aye. All opposed vote No. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 112 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the House has concurred in Senate Amendment number 2 for the House Committee Substitute of House Bill 727. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. House Bill 834, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute number 2 for House Bill 834, a bill to be entitled an act enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of state government by modernizing the state system of Human Resources Management. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I have just a brief moment of personal privilege before the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I’d just like to thank you very much for the position of this bill on the calendar. The last bill I had to present kept being put way back behind the budget and a lot of additional items and I was beginning to not feel the love, so I really appreciate keeping this in this position on the calendar. [LAUGHTER] Now may I be recognized for a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. This is House Bill 34, which was the State Personnel Act bill. It now comes back as House Bill 34, which is a combination of House Bill 34 and Senate Bill 473, which was the Health Care Cost Reduction and Transparency Act. They didn’t make many changes to the original bill. The main change they made probably improved the bill. It made changes to the grievance process, to require approval by the office of state personnel of any final agency actions, and to allow contested case appeal to the office of administrative hearings, and gave the OAH 180 days to answer that appeal. And then parties can go from there to the court of appeals if they’re still not in agreement. So that’s probably a better process than what we had. As far as the extra stuff they put in there, I’ll try to briefly explain Senate Bill 473 which they added. Now from Part 10 to Part 14 of this bill, will deal with that extra bill that was put in. Part 10 creates the Health Care Cost Reduction and Transparency Act. This act creates new reporting requirements for hospitals on pricing for the 100 most common in-patient diagnostic related groups in each hospital. It also requires reporting requirements for out-patient departments and ambulatory surgical centers for their 20 most common surgical procedures and 20 most common imaging procedures. Part 11 of the bill makes it unlawful for any provider of health care services to charge or accept payment for any health care procedure or component of a health care procedure that was not performed or supplied. So you can’t charge for things you didn’t do. Part 12 of the bill prohibits the UNC health care system and its affiliates and other schools of medicine from utilizing setoff debt collection procedures to collect outstanding debts from tax refunds and lottery winnings of debtors. Not sure why those, why the lottery winnings went in with the tax refunds but it’s

Worst case the Senate something is a little quirky and I don't understand and I'm willing to accept it. The reason these hospitals have been singled out is because they're the only ones as I understand who could use this set off debt election procedure to start with on anything. Part thirteen of the bill establishes a fair billing practice for hospitals and ASE's The requirements are that the bill must be written so as to be comprehensible to the ordinary lay person. Which will be a big change. The notice be provided before sent to collections and that the hospital keep the hospital from attaching debtors principal residence spouses and tenors by it's entirety so get some personal assistance from your personal residence not be attached by a hospital. The final part of the bill part fourteen requires hospitals to electronic health records to connect to the HCHIE network and submit data on services page paid for with Medicaid funds. I would ask that you...well my motion has been to concur with this...I'd ask that you vote green to concur. Representative Doptree please state your purpose. To speak on the bill. The gentlemen is recognized to debate the motion. The ability of hospitals to collect money for our pitch ?? who go there for services has been a real problem in our state for years. I know in our small hospital in hallway over twenty million dollars last year and bills that were not paid. And it is not unusual for people who go to the hospital for them not to pay their bills. And what this new bill does is it allows we have adopted under necessities where it started out as a common law that if a person goes to the hospital if a wife goes to the hospital and incurs a debt the husband is liable. That's been the law for a long time and what this bill does is simply says that if you are a owner of property in a state called Tennessee by the entiretys that means you're married if you own a thousand acres of land you and your wife and your wife goes to the hospital well the husband goes to the hospital and will not pay the debt. Then you are not going to be able to go to the courts and go to judgement and collect on that debt for the land owned by Tennessee by the entirety. It's very unfair to the hospital to was supposed by the hospital association. We tried to fix that on the committee yesterday by saying you could only you couldn't levy on the hopes that plus five acres but now no matter how rich you are you and you're wife are free from any kind of collection of debt from the hospital if it's tended by the entirety and it's very unfair. SPEAKER CHANGES: Representative Stan please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES: To speak on the bill. SPEAKER CHANGES: The gentlemen has the floor. SPEAKER CHANGES: Yes I support concurrence on the bill but I completely agree with Representative Dotree and for the information of the members. The bill where his amendment was is on the calendar today. I understand when we sent back the rules and we will do a fix in rules later today. Representative Godtree which says that if eight twenty four becomes law then your amendment and the other amendment would be added to it so I agree with you but hopefully we can fix it. SPEAKER CHANGES: Representative Glacier please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES: To see if Representative Collins would yield for a question please. SPEAKER CHANGES: Representative Collins do you yield Representative Glacier's question? SPEAKER CHANGES: I will give it a shot. SPEAKER CHANGES: He yields. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you Representative and I know it because there's lots of changes trying really quickly to read through. There was...do you know on either section either part of the bill whether there are any organizations or groups that are actively opposed to either section? So we get some sense of where people are. SPEAKER CHANGES: May I respond? SPEAKER CHANGES: Yes sir. SPEAKER CHANGES: I asked that very same question Representative Glacier because obviously I had very little knowledge of the Senate bill coming into this process. I was told that no associations have come out against it. My hospital administrator is pretty good at letting me know when things come up on his radar screen I get correspondents from him regularly I've heard nothing from him on this. So to the best of my knowledge there's no...I haven't received any emails on this. I haven't received any feedback from this frankly as far as I know nobody is opposing this new stuff that's in there. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you one follow up please. Representative Collins do you yield? He yields. SPEAKER CHANGES: Thank you very much and on the first section of the bill I know there was some discussion about whether this stage would please union was opposed or for do we know what their position is on the last on this version? SPEAKER CHANGES: All I know is when I...

Met with them repeatedly and made compromise after compromise to do it. I thought I'd come up with something they could live with, and then the day we showed up in committee, I found out differently. I haven't heard from them since, so I would assume they're still probably opposed to it. But I haven't had any active campaigning going on this time through. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you very much. Representative Insko, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To ask Representative Daughtry a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Daughtry, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES]He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Daughtry, I understand your concern about this section in the bill about tenancy in the entirety, and I hope that you might be willing to take a look at having the property divided 50-50, which would be a reasonable thing to do and not impoverish the whole family. Is that something you would consider? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I certainly will consider that, I just think that if somebody owns a million dollars worth of land, and won't pay the hospital, that the hospital ought to have the right to collect their debt, and the hospital association feels the same way. They supported the amendment yesterday, and I hope that they'll support it again today if we can get it through the committee later on. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Haggar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To see if Representative Stam would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Stam, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES]He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Stam, in talking about the tenancy in entirety issue, do banks have that luxury if I default on a loan and I'm married, can they take my property also? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Well, that's a matter of contract, and every bank that I know of, and by the way I've done 4,000 closings, and probably 3,000 of them involved bank financing, and they get it all. They get it all. Find fault, including the house and every scrap of land there is. Yes, I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]So you're telling me that if I'm the tenancy by entirety, and I enter a debt, and my wife doesn't sign for it, they can take the tenancy by entirety property? [SPEAKER CHANGES]No, the banks always make your spouse sign for it. [SPEAKER CHANGES]If she doesn't sign, similar that if she doesn't sign in a hospital for instance. [SPEAKER CHANGES]They don't lend you the money. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Gentleman has the floor to debate bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The bill, and most of what Representative Collins has a good bill, the tenancy by entirety issue, I think as it is now, is a protection for somebody that, you know most people don't own a million acres, they own 5 acres, 6 acres, 10 acres or 20 acres, and as I understand the law, maybe different than what Representative Stam understands the law, if my spouse doesn't sign on to the, if she's not a guarantor on the piece of property, they can't touch that piece of property, the way I understand this law. And I've done a little bit of research here lately on it. So why are we treating in the amendment, and I apologize if I'm off course Mr. Speaker, let me know. So I like the way this is set up, because it makes it consistent with everything else, and the way everything else runs, whether it's banks, mortgages, or whatever. So I'd urge you to vote for this bill as it is, and keep it as it is. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Brian Brown, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES]Alright, the gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I think this is a great bill, there's a lot of great things in this. However, there was one provision in it that strikes me, and it needs to be fixed, and a little further explored. And that is the debt collection regarding the university systems and their health care practices. In an environment when we continue to cut funding to these systems, I've voted against the budget yesterday, in regards to cutting funding to this particular system. We are restricting their ability to continue to be solvent and provide the extraordinary care that they do, particularly in my region in the rural communities, by restricting their ability to collect their debt off of someone's tax returns. We are one large system here in the state. We send them money, we ask them to be creative in ways to create money and raise money to support themselves, and to be solvent, and I think we need to be able to fix this one particular provision to allow our university health care systems to remain solvent, provide the important care they provide this state. So I would ask you not to concur so we can fix this one small issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To respond to Representative Hager, of course, and also to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I plead that in response to iii Hager question, it was that perhaps if the property was accrued prior to the individuals being remarried, then the second wife, or second spouse then sign an agreement where he or she is not responsible for the debt, because it's going to the first. But the question that I have as it relates

[0:00:00.0] …It is on page 26, section 4, line 14 and 15, it is not so much that an individual do not wish to pay his or her debt. The concern that occur in building is that once a person entering to a medical facility he or she receives many bills from that facility as an example he may go to a hospital and receive bills from two or three other bills in the agency they came the hospital had utilized after providing service as that patient enter into their facility. I think that one thing that I have to be look at as we go back and to rule that the hospital may notify the client into process that he or she maybe receiving bill is maybe in here but it just that the person maybe receiving additional billing from A, B, C or D. So, that particular person would know and many individual have experienced an entree fee___[01:07] and entering to a medical facility and receive multiple billing for multiple agencies that he or she may not thing that they need to pay or because they walked into the door of an example of our facility, take that to the hospital. So, the patient need to know where these bill will be coming from because if you look at the internet system a very keen person can send you bills and you will paying that particular organization bill that you do not know and they can sort of tapping to our financial system meaning the individual patient is there. So, I think that’s critical towards the billing process that a particular patient knows, thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Setzer please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and Gentlemen after statement was made about the state employees association I happen to talk to one of their members and they ask that we do concur with this as it is stated and as it came out the conference committee they are in full support I just want to clear up that little matter, thank you ladies and gentlemen of the house. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luke please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If Representative Collins yells for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins do you yell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do my best. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do my best. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Collins, I’m concerned in the certain state personnel part of the bill on page 4 beginning at lines 47 and this has been raised when the bill was first in the house that the number of exempt positions in State Government is going to increase from 1000 to 1,500 that many of us thought was politicizing the situation in amongst State Government personnel. I’m wondering whether the senate, whether this issue came up at all in the senate whether the senate express any concerns about this expansion of the exempt positions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologies, I heard you say that rise in exempt positions is a political issue, is that the question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question that I had Representative Collins was whether the expansion of the exempt positions in effect turning civil servants into political appointees whether the Senate had any discussion about that feature because we did discuss it with some length in the house. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to response. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My response is I have no idea what the Senate discussed they didn’t change this so I wasn’t ___[04:00] to their discussions so I don’t know whether that was a point of discussion or not? I understand now I have been told by two or three people that Senate does not oppose this bill anymore so apparently they don’t view at that way and I think the main reason Senate probably is now on board has to do with the appeal process change because that probably set and it’s probably is a better process than the kind of convoluted process we had but I even heard from anybody a discussion or criticism of that particular aspect since we send it over to the senate. If there is any problem with that on their part I don’t about it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Collins. Members of the house this is not much discussion in just now as we have reviewed the motion to concur and I think it is something that we should draw everyone’s attention I think that when this bill was before us, right before across over it did draw lot of attention, we did see that 500 additional civil servants… [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]

Will lose their protections and that the number of exempt positions will go up to 1500. That seems to undermine our civil service. It does make more of the positions political positions. I do not think that increasing the number of political positions in state government administration is a good idea. I can’t support the bill on the basis of this expansion of the exempt positions, of politically exempt positions, which indeed therefore politicizes the state government administration. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Special messages from the Senate. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Special messages from the Senate. They speak from concerns with the message from the Senate on July 24th, 2013 informing the house of representatives from the Senate failed to confirm house committee substitute number three to Senate bill 321. A bill to confirm capital reimbursement by counties for medical services provided to inmates in county jails. And, allow counties to utilize Medicaid for eligible prisoners. It is ordered that it must be sent to a (??) body with information sent to request comp reads. The president pro tem of points, some to the senate’s chair, some to Goolsby, on part of the Senate to confer with a like committee appointed by (??) (??) (??) so that the differences may be resolved respectfully. (??) Lane, principal clerk [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. Conferees for Senate bill 321 will be Birchair, Hagar, Tenmore, and Saine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senate will be sent out a vote by special messenger. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Pittman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to ask Rep. Collins a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Collins, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. I’m wondering. This section about the dire necessities about collections on the hospitals and all. In a situation where a person cannot afford to pay the bill, and they’re trying to pay monthly, what they can. This would not allow the hospital to refuse to accept that and take their property would it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m told by those that have vetted as a separate bill in some of the committees that I was not on, that the answer to that question is no. I’m going to assume that they know what they’re talking about. Thank you Rep. Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor to debate the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to remind everyone, that as far as the state personnel act part of this is concerned we had a good vote on this and it went over. The bill was actually improved. I’m delighted that scenic is supporting one of my bills. It is a marriage in heaven that I never thought I would get. I would ask that you vote in agreement to concur with this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? Rep. Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question for Rep. Collins if he could? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Collins, do you yield? He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I certainly will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Rep. Collins. I just have a question. You indicate the Senate was supporting the bill. Are they also supporting the hospital portion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’ve asked a question I have no idea about. Rep. Hall. I really don’t know their position on that. Nobody has stated any opposition. No organization has stated an opposition to me regarding that bill. So, if anybody is opposed to it, I’m totally unaware of it. I might also say, that in all fairness, that obviously this part of the bill has been dropped on me pretty late in the game also. But, I was told by those who dropped it on me that there were no organizations rallying against it as well. I’m taking somebody else’s word for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stone. Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman, the part we’ve been having a discussion on, is actually some legislation that has been done all over the country. It actually has proven to lower health care costs. It went through rules yesterday and it pretty much passed unanimously going out of rules that this was a direction we want to go. I urge you to support this bill and move forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep.Daughtry please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the conference report a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor to debate the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think basically this is a good bill. A good conference report. I just am disappointed in the part regarding collection by hospitals, and so are the hospitals. I think we ought to vote to concur and then try to fix it in rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the Senate committee substitute number two to house bill 834. Those in in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote.

Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 101 in affirmative and 12 in the negative. The motion to concur is passed… and enrolled and sent to the governor. Senate bill 480, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the ?? Speaker of House of Representatives ?? to resolve the differences between the Senate and House of Representatives on senate bill 480 at ?? ?? would like to authorize the acquisition or construction, and the financing without appropriation of the general fund of certain capital improvement projects, of the constituent institution University of North Carolina and to acquire registers of deed to maintain regular office hours. The conferees recommend the Senate and House of Representatives adopt this report, conferees for the Senate, Senate actor Dr. ?? Brunstetter and Brown. Conferees for the House of Representatives, representative Howard chair, Respresentative Lambeth and Hanes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lady has the floor to debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House. We had a good vote on this yesterday and some good discussion and I would ask that we can vote again in a very positive manner. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the adoption of the conference report to senate bill 480. Those in the affirm— those who are in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 102 in the affirmative and 10 in the negative. The motion to adopt the conference report is passed, senate bill 480. And the senate will be notified. Senate bill 553, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ?? ?? speaker of House of Representatives for conferees appointed to resolve the difference between Senate and House of Representatives on senate bill 553 a bill trying to enact to establish grievance and appeal procedures for local ?? entity manage care organizations, Medicaid enrollees. The conferees recommend the Senate and House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees from the Senate, Senator Hise chair and Senator Pate. Conferees from the House of Representatives, Representative Dollar chair, Representative Burr. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized for motion and debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that we adopt the conference report for senate bill 553 and I wish to speak on ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members of the House. 553 is a bill that we originally sent over I think as 320 and then we sent this bill over, senate bill. Senate did not concur. When we had our conference we made a couple of really clarifying changes. The bill is pretty much the language that we originally worked out in house bill 320, which is a good thing. In addition, we added to this bill the contents, or the majority of the contents, of senate bill 663 which was here, and the contents of that have to do with some housing issues and a few other related issues that came out of recommendations from the Blue Ribbon commission on the transitions to community living, so the contents of that were, those provisions were worked out, those issues were worked out, in the Blue Ribbon commission last year and earlier this year and Senator Hise had put those, the housing pieces, since he shared that piece of the commission. He put those in a bill and we made a few

...tweaks to those and put those in this bill. The other provision that is in here is a provision that actually relates to a hospital assessment. As you know in the budget we made some changes to hospital assessment and increased it rather substantially. And what this provision does, and the hospital's association supports this provision, what it basically does is just allow them a better allocation of those burdens among the constituent hospitals and there's, to my knowledge, all of these three major pieces are sections of this conference report are in agreement on no opposition. I'd be happy to attempt to answer any questions but would appreciate your support for the conference report. [Speaker Changes] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the adoption of the conference report to Senate Bill 553. Those who favor the notion will say aye. Those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and thirteen having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the notion has passed and the bill will remain on the calendar. Members would like to take a moment to recognize the nurse of the day that is with us. I believe it is Janelle Simpson from Durham, North Carolina. Thanks for being with us today. Representative Brawley, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Mister Speaker, I'd like to be recorded as voted yes on House Bill 834. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman will be recorded as voting yes on House Bill 834. House Bill 618, the Clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] Committee Substitute number 2 for House Bill 618, a bill entitled "An Act to Restore Firearm Rights to Certain Persons Who Were Convicted of Non-Violent Felonies Before December 1st, 1995 and Whose Firearm Rights Have Been Restored Before December The First, 1995 and to Increase the Fee to Petition for the Restoration of Firearm Rights." Jones, Senator of North Carolina, you're next. [Speaker Changes] Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To speak on the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman has full room to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Ladies and gentlemen, this bill is a very simple bill. In 1995 some changes were made to the Firearm Restoration law with regard to convicted felons and there were many of them that had met the requirements of the law at the time and had their rights restored, and then they lost them again because of the law, because there was nothing grandfathered in it. And some of them are ineligible to ever apply again because of changes that were made in the law. All this bill is, is to fix what should have been fixed at that time. It will allow those whose rights were restored, who have not since had any felonies or any problems, to regain those rights. It will not change the current law and it's applicable only to those who were caught in this trap, as far as I'm concerned, on or before December 1st, 1995. And so I'd like to send forth an amendment. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] Representative Speciale moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 13 by deleting 'after' and inserting 'on.' [Speaker Changes] Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, Mister Speaker. There's just a technical correction, it should have been 'on.' If they had their rights restored 'on' the day that this bill took effect, which was December 1st, 1995, then this would correct it. It shouldn't have been 'after' 'cause it will only apply to those whose rights were restored 'on' that day. I ask that you would support the amendment and then I ask that you would support the bill. [Speaker Changes] Any further debate or discussion on the amendment? If not, the Court...

Speaker: ….action before the house is the passage of amendment 1, to the house committee substitute 2, to house bill 618. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 106 having voted in the affirmative, 6 in the negative. The amendment 1 is adopted. We are back on the bill. Representative Glacier, please state your purpose. Representative: To debate the bill Mr. Speaker. Speaker: The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I really want to thank Representative Speciality and Representative Stearns, I know who worked on this and I had opposed, both in committee and on the floor, the previous drafts because I thought they opened firearms to folks I thought should not have it, but I am in favor of this modified bill because I think it does exactly what Representative Speciality says it does, and it really is a matter of fairness. It gets to a very small subset of people who had their rights restored and then by retroactive application of a law, which we should rarely ever do retroactive application of a law, they had their rights cut off. In this sense, I think this is really getting to that subset who was unfairly treated and I support the bill. Thank you. Speaker: Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. Representative: To debate the bill. Speaker: The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentleman of the house. I appreciate Rep. Speciality fixing this bill and toning down the impact of it. I think it is unfortunate that in the wake of Sandy Bumkin, a war in Tucson, and the Trevon Martin tragedy, that we are not discussing gun safety bills and instead, two days ago, significantly expanded where we can take concealed carries, to the credit of Representative Schaeffer, to her credit, did fix the provision, and getting guns into the hands of ex-felons. I would like to be recognized to send forth an amendment. Speaker: The lady is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. Clerk: Rep. Harrison moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 5, by deleting. Speaker: The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. This amendment actually moves to repeal the stand your ground law that was enacted by this legislature in 2011. I have done a little bit of research since the Trevon Martin tragedy and since Florida enacted the stand your ground legislation justifiable, homicides have tripled in that state. Now we have expanded where folks can carry concealed guns as of Tuesday night and now we have this stand your ground provision. So I would just urge your support. Thank you. Speaker: Rep. Moore, please state your purpose. Representative: Rise to a point of order. Speaker: The gentleman may state his point of order. Representative: Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this amendment is not germane to the bill. I would ask that the speaker to rule the amendment out of order. Speaker: Representative Moore I think your point is well taken. It appears that the amendment is not germane to the bill and is out of order, and will be displaced. We are now back on the bill: further discussion, further debate, on the bill? Rep. Speciality, please state your purpose. Representative: To speak one more time on the bill sir. Speaker: The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill a second time. Representative: I just want to remind everybody that this issue is not about guns. For those who… it does not matter where you stand on it: this is simply a fairness issue. A bill was passed here and it did not take into consideration that some people had earned their right back. It has been since 1995. Any of the folks who have had their right since that time, if they were still people that we did not want to have guns – if they were criminals, if they had any felonies since then, they are out of the ballpark – it is as simple as that. So they would have shown their colors – it has been 18 years, and I ask, in the name of fairness, that you support this bill. Speaker: Representative Collins, please state your purpose. Representative: To debate the bill. Speaker: The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Representative: I would like to point out that a lot of oddities come at the end of the session. For the second successive day, Representative Glacier and I are in 100% agreement on a bill that we are speaking – this is getting to be fun Rep. Glacier. I would like to reiterate what Rep. Speciality just said: we are restoring rights that were retroactively taken away from people – that is what this is about. I am as much of a law and order person as any person in this chamber, with maybe a couple of exceptions. This is a fairness bill: we are restoring rights to people that were retroactively had them taken away. So, I would ask that you vote green and vote for this bill. Speaker: Representative Brown, please state your purpose. Representative: To debate the bill. Speaker: The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Representative: I just wanted to congratulate Speciality for….

this could be all, I think this is an overall theme that we need to be talking about when we're talking about restoration of rights. There is possibly a voter ID bill that would come over that will talk about taking away people's rights after they have been restored. I hope that all of us that feel the same way about this will feel the same way about that. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask Representative Brandon a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Always. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Always. He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, could you point to me any bill in which somebody's rights, in which, specifically somebody's right to vote, is being taken away. Because I haven't seen any such legislation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to answer the question. There is a provision in the Senate bill that would want the people, felons to have five extra years before they vote, that is in the bill. I hope that you would vote against that provision in the fairness of what you decided today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Back on the bill. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute number 2 as amended, the House Bill 618. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Representative Michaux, Representative Adams, do you want to vote? The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 109 having voted in the affirmative and 2 in the negative. The second reading for House Bill 618 has passed and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? Representative Brown, please state your purpose. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House committee substitute number 2 as amended to House Bill 618. Those in favor will say aye. Those opposed will say no. And ?? the chairs the ayes have it and the bill has passed its third reading. It will be engrossed and sent to the Senate as amended. Senate Bill 317. The clerk will read. [silence] Representative Brown, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could you change my vote on House Bill 334 to aye? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's vote will be changed. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute to Senate Bill 317, a bill to be entitled "An Act to Reduce the Size of the Guilford County Board of Education from 11 to 9 Members, and to Establish Revised Districts for the Guilford County Board of Education, and to Subject to a Referendum Provide for Partisan Elections for the Board, and to District the Stanly County Board of Commissioners and the Stanly County Board of Education. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You may recall we had a robust debate on this bill yesterday as it relates to the redistricting of the Guilford County Board of Education. The explanation from yesterday still stands today. You may see that you have some, we've passed out maps for the redistricting as it would affect Guilford County and Stanly County. I appreciate your support on the second reading yesterday, and I'd appreciate your support again today. I'd be glad to take any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I don't want to repeat my comments from yesterday, I just want to urge you to vote no. We do not need to be meddling in local government elections. Thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't reiterate everything that's been said, but I just want to remind you that the citizens of Guilford County have not expressed any dissatisfaction with their local school board. Maybe a couple of citizens have some issues, but that's no reason for us to meddle in Guilford County and change their school board in any way. As a matter of fact, in the last election there was only one board member that was opposed to. You should also know that the Guilford County school board voted unanimously on the 28th of March to oppose this bill. We should give the citizens of Guilford County a thorough opportunity to

Representative: …make its own decisions, this bill does not do it, even with the referendum, it does not address everything in terms of giving citizens the opportunity of expressing their opinions about it. I also believe that partisan elections are absolutely inappropriate for school boards: they don’t provide an opportunity for the people who serve to do the best job for all of the children. It is going to impede the board’s ability to act appropriately. This bill was developed in isolation of public opinion or input. Also, it did not receive input from our school board. It is a bad bill for Gilford County. We do not want it. We do not need it. Speaker: Representative please state your purpose. Representative: Mr. President I would like to see if Representative Adams would yield for a question. Speaker: Representative Adams, do you yield? Representative: I will since I am at the end of my comments. Speaker: Representative yields. Representative: Representative, did you just say that this plan did not receive input from the Gilford County Board of Education? Representative: Yes I did say that. Representative: Well I…follow up Mr. Speaker? Speaker: Do you yield? Representative: I do. Speaker: She yields. Representative: Representative Adams, so you are saying that the communications that I have had with the school board, with the chairman of the school board, you are saying that none of that took place? Representative: I am saying that you may have told them what you wanted to do, but you did not listen to what they wanted to do. That is what I am saying. Representative: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the bill a second time? Speaker: Gentleman has the floor to debate the bill a second time. Representative: Thank you. I just want to set the record straight here. I have very much been in communication with the Gilford Board of Education. I have actually had at least two members of the school board email me within the last 24 hours to thank the house for the work we have done to improve this bill. The Gilford County Board of Education does stand in opposition to this bill but they prefer the house plan over the original senate plan. I have sent an email out to all the members the Gilford County Board of Education. I have been in contact with them all through this process. I have gotten a whole lot of feedback from them, as has also Senator Fairclothe, he has also worked with me on this. So there has been ample communication between members of the… between Representative Fairclothe and myself and others who have worked on this. As you can see our delegation is divided on this, but I think it is the right thing to do. I appreciate your support. Speaker: Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. Representative: To ask Representative Harvester a question please. Speaker: Representative Harvester, do you yield? Representative: Certainly. Representative: Representative Harvester, and this can be for you or anyone who wants to answer the question, I just wanted to know – I am just confused on why we have a referendum on one part and we do not have a referendum on the other part with the maps. Can you just explain to the body why we decided that the people should decide whether it should be partisan but they should not have the right to decide what the lines look like, what the redistricting looks like? Please explain the difference. Representative: I would be glad to yield to the question. The answer to that is that I believe that the partisan elections provision is the most controversial on this topic and we thought it would be best to leave that decision to the voters. As to the maps themselves, I think, as a legislator from Gilford County, I think it is very important to match the commissioner districts with the education districts to make it more efficient for communications between the citizens and their elected officials, and between the two elected bodies. I think that is in common concert of good government. So I thought it would be good to make that change legislatively, but the partisan elections provision, being the most controversial, I thought it would be best to put that to referendum. Representative: To speak on the bill please. Speaker: Representative Brandon you have the floor to debate the floor. Representative: I think that Representative had a clear indication of why we should vote this down. It is in his opinion why he thought this should not be a part of public input, but that is not what our laws dictate us to do – it is not the opinion of Representatives [xx], Fairclothe and Harvester to determine whether or not we should have lines redrawn, it is the vote of the people that should do that. They did not send us up here as just a matter of opinion, but to represent them, and we are not representing them by just basically stating our own opinion. I think we all know the real reason why we did not put it up for public vote because they know that it would absolutely… Representative: [interrupting] Mr. Speaker.. Speaker: Please state your purpose.

Would relax for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir do you not agree that we all represent about roughly 80 thousand people and what he is doing is subject to our vote and thereby that process we are doing that in fact we do that on every issue that we have been forth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do agree with that but may be you have not elected the redistricting laws and how important that is and when we talk about redistricting we always have a specific way that we do that and that is to take that to the people that at least have a public form so they can have input. There are things that we have to take to the people and we drawing lines is one of them. Do you not agree with that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have a follow up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No I was waiting to respond to his question. Yes Sir I do agree with that I believe that representative Hardister line that he has duly communicate with people in his committee on this issue. When I question your premise that what he is doing is not the reflection of the will of the people in his district. I submit to you that every piece of idea that you have including your position on charters school last session was reflection of your position on it. In best interest of the people that elected you to come here and represent them. And I submit to you that what he is doing now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposition on education. Here is a representative of people that I represent I had ten halls over 200 people 300 people came from my district. They overwhelmly majority of them supported what I was doing and so that's what I did but in this particular case we do have protocol on how we deal with redistricting and I would venture to say this math that we have on our table that 99.9% of the people in the county have never seen that math. If anybody wants to challenge me on that I would be glad to be challenged but I would say that less that 1.1% of that people in Guilford county have seen that math and that is just wrong and my question is for you guys is that why is it okay for us to have a referendum on one part of the bill and not a referendum on the one that law states that we have one on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see representative veil for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He veils thank you my friend. Representative you are aware. You may or may not be aware my question is this map was published in greens brow news in record. Are you aware of that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am aware of that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] so follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You still think that only 1% of population is seeing the math. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. I do. I am gonna clear my comments but I just want everybody to realize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Garland please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon would you up for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon do you veil? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Always. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon are you didn't say on the decision we made on electronic notification was actually a wonderful decision. Since in the nobody ?? newspapers. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well it's actually less quick to look at the county website that's like 0.5%. So that's where I come into. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon you to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon do you veil? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Always. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you running for Congress? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is not a big, everybody that knows me know that I am a really big fervor and I get in trouble in both sides if it is a referendum or vote for the local bill. If it's not a referendum I will not vote for the local bill that is a strict policy that I have always had. The last time we brought this to house it was 181 and I was don't know when they voted against measure I will be voting against this one was simply the fact that do all that I read says that you have to take these types of things to the people that they have to have input and I am just asking you to look at the fact that we have one part of this that is the referendum and one part that is not that sounds kind of fishy but it is fishy and I ask you to vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to speak briefly a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lady is recognized to debate the bill second time. Thank you. As you can see from the debate on this floor while we don't need a participant election of the decision to win this bill forward was in partition one. That's unfortunate because Guilford County includes several parties. People were not included in this discussion to address this issue in this way, that's a problem that should be pretty obvious, we say that representative Harrison mention three people involved my county 8 times 3 is 24 is 24000 people that does not.

Not inclusive and we really need to be inclusive and the County of Guilford has not been included in this process. I can’t imagine that we would want to [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the lady yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, are you running for Congress? [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you running for Congress? [PAUSE] Are you a candidate for Congress? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think you know whether or not I’m a candidate for Congress. But that’s not why I’m, right now, that’s not even. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the lady will yield. Representative Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You understand [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you have another, Representative Faircloth do you have a follow up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield for follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I hope, do you understand that perhaps all the other people, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order, Mr. Speaker. [PAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who is? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hamilton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just wondering what a Congressional race has to do with this, why that’s material to this conversation about a local bill regarding the school board in Guilford County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point is taken. Representative Faircloth, you have further questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No further. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, you have the floor to continue to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would wonder why the issue didn’t come up before because when I look around here, there are probably several other people, but here’s my point. I represent Guilford County. Representative Hardister, you Representative did not have the kind of discussion with the Democratic members who represent Guilford County, this was brought by a partisan group, it is not inclusive, and you know it was not inclusive. The school board, while they may have been talked to about what you were going to do, they did not have sufficient input. It’s a bad bill. I would appreciate you voting no on it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Everyone said quite a bit today. I just wanted to reiterate one point that Representative Adams said. We talked about the bill being partisan. I just wanted to remind you that less than four weeks ago you passed a partisan bill for the City of Sanford elections and for the school board elections. We had signups. And just so you know, this is the most people signed up for an election that I can remember in my 43 years. We’ve got primaries in Democrats and Republicans. Partisan elections work. Now I know the side of the people not knowing about the school board districts. I’ll make sure you understand that they line up with the county commissioner districts. So they only need to know who their county commissioner is, and they know what the school board district’s going to be. I think it’s a great bill, and I’d ask you to support it and move forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 317. Those in favor will vote Aye. Those opposed will vote No. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 71 having voted in the affirmative and 41 in the negative, the bill passes its third reading and will be engrossed and sent to the Senate. Senate Bill 287, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 287, a bill to be entitled an act to allow governing boards of Guilford County and all municipalities located in that County to give public notices electronically. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust, you have further? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think we had a good vote on this bill yesterday and I would urge you to vote green again today. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To, a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to state a point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Recalling all of the Asheville bills on the calendar, I’m wondering if this will be the last Guilford County bill we see today? Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point is well taken. Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may speak again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I hope no one has an objection to it. I do support this bill now, as it has been amended. I think it’s a win-win. The notices get in the newspaper and they get on the website so we won’t leave people out. I’d appreciate it if you would support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage

Of House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 287. Those who favor the bill will vote aye, those opposed to the bill will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 106 having voted in the affirmative and 4 in the negative, the bill passes its third reading, and will be engrossed and sent to the Senate. Senate Bill 523, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 523, a bill to be entitled an act to clarify and amend the penalties for a tax payer’s failure to file a return. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had 112 votes for this yesterday. I would appreciate your support again today. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiring of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have an amendment to send forth but I need to perfect it. At this point, what would the process be, may I ask that it be displaced at this time, and the new amendment be prepared? It’s a very [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the bill sponsor does not mind displacing the bill, it can be temporarily displaced. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, we’ve been trying to work with Representative Jordan since last night when he first brought forth the amendment. It’s the opinion of the sponsor and the supporters and the Department of Revenue that the amendment guts the bill. I’d like to go ahead and have the opportunity to vote it down, vote the bill and move on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 17 by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and colleagues. Before the final, the vote we took yesterday, I asked Representative Brawley about the last lines in his bill, 23 and 24, where it defined the amount of the tax means the tax imposed before credits and tax payments, and so what that does is even if you have overpaid taxes that are due to the Department of Revenue, if you have not filed that report you’re going to be penalized and it’s my understanding that the concern of the department is really sales taxes and now the perfecting amendment would have included excise taxes on alcohol, because those taxes need to be distributed to local governments. And it’s important right now without the report, the Department of Revenue does not know where those funds need to go and they just sit there in the Treasury. But at the same time, I don’t want to penalize income tax filers and other tax filers who may have overpaid and given us a tax free, I mean an interest free loan, why should they be penalized? They need to get that report in definitely, but I don’t know why we need to take a sledgehammer to take care of something that really needs a scalpel. So I’d appreciate your support for the amendment. The perfecting amendment would have been even better. It does not gut the bill because they told me that sales tax, and excise taxes were the ones they were after. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As we discussed last night, no individual tax payer is impacted by this bill. This is only going to be businesses. It is also only going to apply in cases where people do not file, and do not request an extension. In situations where this will apply, and the way it’s written, is where people have sent in taxes for sales and excise and are not doing the paperwork for whatever reason. That’s the only way it applies. Representative Jordan brought me an amendment last night. It was late, I read it, I first looked at it, thought you know OK this makes sense, it’ll work. I can support it, but let me run it by the department. I was shocked to find they don’t work at 11:00 at night like we do, so I gave it to them this morning. [LAUGH] Their initial response was it doesn’t work. It messes up the bill and does not achieve what we want to do, it basically guts the bill. I asked them to send me talking points. The gentleman that is the, actually the expert is in Charlotte today and we’ve been trying to get him on the phone. The local folks are working. We are trying to do as much as we can. But the bottom line is we’ve had a bill that’s gone through committee in the Senate. It’s been voted. It’s come over. It’s been through committee here. It’s been voted. It’s had second reading. It’s been voted. There have been similar attempts to make similar changes at every step upon the way. There comes a point when you say we have beat this amendment

in enough times, let's beat it again and vote the bill and move on. So I ask you to defeat the amendment. Let's vote the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, and Representative Brawley, I spent some time with last night, and we talked about this bill and this amendment, and he brought a lot of things to my mind that, as we look at the 2,000-plus bills this year that comes through here, that was a considerable concern. I would ask that you would support the amendment. I was hoping they would work this out so we wouldn't have this debate here on the floor. But I have a lot of concerns with the bill as it is, and I would love to see this amendment take place. I just don't want the attack on small businesses. And I can tell you, from a guy that's been in a small business, that you get a report from the Department of Revenue, they don't tell you next month you didn't send the paperwork in right. They tell you next year. They charge you penalty and interest all the way back, 12 or 16 months. Small business is the backbone, not only of North Carolina but the United States. And when you do something that impacts small businesses, it makes people want to get out of the business, and we feel like we're getting hit over the head time and time again by our government. I know this is not on the amendment, but therefore for now I'd ask you to vote against this, vote for this amendment, and I'll come back and discuss the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Lee yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, you're referring to failure-to-pay penalties when there are errors in reports being submitted. Is that correct, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think there's multiple reasons in this bill, not just one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, do you yield to a follow up? He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The point being that they are auditing a report you have sent in and charging you for errors, and this bill addresses you not having sent the report at all. Is that not correct, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can tell you in my 20 years of dealing with the State Department of Revenue that we've been told we haven't sent reports in that we've sent in, we've been told we didn't fill out the reports correctly that we had on file we sent out correctly. There was times they were right, there was times we were right, but I tell you what, we always got the bill. You don't have anyone to fight for you when you're a small business. You pay the bill. I'll tell you what, it's cheaper to pay the bill than it is to pay an accountant $75, $125 an hour to prove you're right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will concede the gentleman's point on the small business friendliness of the Department of Revenue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I move this bill be temporarily displaced. I believe there's some valid concerns raised on both sides, but it sounds like this is one where the parties could probably get together and resolve this and save a lot of floor time. So I move the bill be temporarily displaced. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. House Bill 725. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute Number 2 for House Bill 725, a bill to be entitled an act to establish the Juvenile Jurisdiction Advisory Committee, to create a pilot civil citation process for juveniles, and to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 16- and 17-year-olds who have committed misdemeanor offenses. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen. I'm bringing forth before you a bill today that has been studied in numerous ways and shapes and forms, and has been compromised in many ways and shapes and forms. What we are proposing to do here is to bring our 16- and 17-year-old misdemeanant juveniles from the adult court system into the juvenile justice system. The bill is fairly simple although it looks complicated. And first of all, I'd like you to look at the first part, where we establish a Juvenile Jurisdiction Advisory Committee. Pay close attention to the people who make up that committee as I explain further what this bill will do. There is a pilot in here to look at civil citation programs across the country. The one most people are familiar with is the one in Florida, and this is simply a formalized process of how we take these juveniles into the system, how we treat them, how we hold them accountable, and then be able to

portion of the bill that you just explained, is it not coming directly from a larger landfill bill that was heard by the Senate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know if it is or not. You talking about Senate Bill 328? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't, I quite frankly I'll be real honest with you. I haven't read Senate Bill 328. This language was provided when we had our conference, when they were doing their conference, and we were asked to look at these, and we picked out the ones that we thought the House would agree with, and went with those. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then it is though, fair to say that this language appeared in the bill for the first time during conference. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know where it was on the Senate side, quite frankly. It's the first time that we've seen it here, I think. But there was quite a bit of the Senate things in the conference that I hadn't seen before. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, inquiry of the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe it is true that section 59 of this bill was not in anything prior to suddenly jumping into the conference bill. It was not in dispute. There was no subject like this in the bill, therefore under rule 44B, I believe, this being a significant matter, that this needs to be referred to a standing committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House be at ease. Representative McGrady, you are correct that the House has that rule. The Senate does not have a similar rule, therefore the chair would take the position that the bill before us is properly before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair. Further question of the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Coming back to part B, the first portion of this says that the Senate doesn't have a similar rule, and it provides for that, but I was referring actually to the second portion. If the Senate does not have a similar rule, which they do not, they just have a germaneness rule, a conference committee report which includes significant matters that were not in difference between the houses, shall be referred to a standing committee. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, with all deference, that the first portion of the rule does provide that if the Senate has some similar rule we do one thing, but the second portion of the rule provides otherwise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair accepts the gentleman's argument. We will go under recess and we will hear this bill in rules and then bring it back to the floor. Ladies and gentlemen, for your planning purposes, we are likely to go late tonight. The chair anticipates objection to a third reading of a bill that we will take up this afternoon. The chair does not expect to, because of the anticipated objection, we will have to meet shortly after midnight, but only to take up the one bill, that, again, if an objection occurs. Otherwise the chair has made the decision that we will have session in the morning at 9am. But I say that to make you mindful of the fact that we may be here anyway. We will honor the gentleman's request, and we will have this matter in rules and then back on the floor. So, without objection House Bill 74 will be removed from the calendar and re-referred to the committee on rules. Is there objection? So ordered. Representative Moore is recognized to sent forth a committee report. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, for rules, calendar, and operations of the House, Senate Bill 380. Adjust landfill permit fee ?? Favorable House committee substitute. Unfavorable is the Senate committee substitute.