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 Part 2

Full MP3 Audio File

[INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC] [APPLAUSE] [INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC]

[Music] [Applause] [00:00:58 to 00:01:13] [Music] [00:01:14 to 00:03:04] [Applause] [00:03:05] [Background conversation] [00:03:17 to 00:03:54] [Music] [00:03:54 to 00:04:49] Applause [00:04:49 till the end]

The house will come to order. Members or visitors please clear the gallery. I'm sorry. Do not clear the gallery. Clear the chamber. The sergeant of arms appreciates that. And members and visitors please silence all electronic devices. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stan please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The house will come to order. The gentleman is recognized for point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Kristen Dancy was in LA here for I believe for six years, working this summer, getting her masters at Carnegie Mellon in violin. For those of you who are interested, after 12 years of homeschooling she went through Chapel Hill with only one A- . Graduated first in her class and I’m sorry to lose her. She has been a great assistant in my office. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stan, if we were held up to that academic standards\, I wonder how many members would be in the Chamber right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is out of order. Message from the sub, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Special message from the Senate. Mr. Speaker has ordered the message with Senate with the House of Representatives with the information in Senate Dobbs report with comp briefs on House Bill 392 a bill in entire act requiring county department of social services to verify whether an applicant or recipient of temporary assistance for needy families benefits and food and nutrition benefits is a fleeing felon or probation or parole violated when the appropriate action has been taken by both chambers the bill will be ordered in role, respectively Sara Lange, principal clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. Ladies and gentlemen, the chair is allowing a bit more.

…time for some of the members of the minority caucus to return to the chamber. The clerk has advised me we cannot group all the Bills on the counter and vote them out together. Mr. Speaker. I was trying to find a way to be very efficient with all remaining legislation for the day. But… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair has noted the gentleman’s efficiency. House Bill 392 will be enrolled and sent to the governor. Counter, Senate Bill 71, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 71, a Bill that’s been titled an an act amending the laws regulating irrigation contractors to provide substantive requirements for licensing corporations, to provide for the issuance of licenses to nonresidents, to clarify the fee structure, and to make other conforming changes. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s recognized to debate the bill. The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members this is a bill that has already been through finance, and I forget, I think it was rules was the other half bill. Basically this is for irrigation contractors’ licensing. They already have the license. It allows them to have business entities licensed if they want to, and they already have someone with an irrigation contract license. It also puts in a provision so that if someone accidentally does not meet the continuing ed requirements in time, normally their license would cease, and they would have to go all the way back through the re-licensing provision and pay both the re-licensing fee and one other penalty fee. So what this does put in place is gives them another 60 days to go and take those continuing ed classes, and then to pay a flat $300, which is less than what they’d pay otherwise, or $250, less than what they’d pay otherwise, so that they can keep their license. It’s basically a way to help them keep business and moving forward. I urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee substitute, the Senate Bill 71 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will allow additional time for the members to return to their seats. Representative Farmer-Butterfield is they lady’s wish to be recorded as voting aye. Lady to be recorded as voting aye. The clerk will ?? the vote. 94 having voted affirmative, 12 in the negative, the House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 71 has passed the second reading without objection. It will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assemble 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 71 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 71 has passed its third reading and will be returned to the Senate. The House will come to order. Representative Lucas is recognized for point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman, ‘twas near the last day of session, as all came to realize that it would not end until it’s Burrgarized. As session began, we Starnzed and Maloned. But soon were bombarded by a blust of Stone. So we hopped a trolley to a Torbett of Burr, with hope of finding a Schaffer of Holley. Soon a good man Jetered a ray…

…in a hurry to Shepard two Brawleys to hurry a Murry. Then Hastings-ly we Hollo-ed a Caitlin of water. But tired of its name we Mobley-ed a Speciale for Jordan and Saine. We then Fisher-ed into a Blackwell to Stam or Waddell. As two Bells Foushee-d down two Halls to Whitmire of Riddell. Along came a Farmer-Butterfield who lured a Hanes, two Grahams, to Lambeth a Lewis. Determined to move forward we Luebke-d an Earle, to Faircloth a Queen but only Cotham a Ross to quell a Warren. So step back and the sound the Horn to Ramsey or Wilkins a Holloway forlorn. Move Boles-y forward by investing a Dollar for surely Samuelson and McElraft will politely follow. Pierce quite Allerly. A Langdon of Conrad or Hager a team of Daughtry and Brisson so Carney and McGrady may herd a Moffitt of Steinburg. Encouraging Nascar to Ford to provide a Ford for a good Pittman. To drive and yell, “Younts.” Cunningham and McManus West to lead them to Presnell. The session grew long and soon an Avila or reps began to Gill weird as they Insko-ed a Baskerville a Brown, Brown bits. Turner suggested that we Brody a Setzer of deceased presidents to score Szoka Moore and Moore. So we consulted Presidents Alexander Hamilton, Harrison, Cleveland, Jackson and Johnson to Michaux us a way to end this session for now and Elmore. A special committee of reps Terry, Tolson, Davis, Dobson, Mills, McNeill, Bryan, Richardson, Hardister, Collins, G. Martin, S. Martin, Fulghum, Dixon and Jones, to be chaired by Rep Howard, was charged to state and into this session by a certain date. But Representative Brandon inquired, “What’s wrong with being late?” So Lucas, if you think that this session has been long, why be annoyed? It can be ended with a quick nod to Representative Floyd. Well, it is ending and soon we’ll be leaving. But not with queries from Reps Glazier and Stevens. So legislators continue to realize that this session could not end till it’s Burr-gerized. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was the first one here today on my side and I just want everybody to know that. But I would also like to see if these comments could be spread across the journal, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, you have no witnesses on the first matter. And your point on the second is well taken. We would like to have that spread across the journal. I think we’ve kind of upped our culture today, violins and poetry. Now we’re back to the top of the calendar, House Bill 74, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] “To the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the point to resolve the differences between Senate…”

House of Representatives on House Bill 74 ?? to improve and streamline the regulatory process in order to stimulate job creation to eliminate unnecessary regulation to make varies other essential changes and to amend certain environment and natural resources laws the Comfries(??) recommend the Senate and House of Representatives adopt his report. Comfries for the Senate, Senator Jackson chair, Senators Brock, Brown and Wade. Comfries for the House of Representatives, Representative Moffitt chair, Representative Murray, Milis and Sanderson [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt please state your purpose Thank you Mister Speaker I like to make a motion and debate the motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to make the motion and debate the motion Thank you Mister Speaker, members I move that the House do adopt the conference report in regard to House BILL 74 as agreed to with the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion Thank you, members, what you have before you is actually a combination of two Bills; you have the House Bill 94 which is the Environmental Amends Bill, returned to us from the Senate quite some time ago. What you also have in this Bill is Senate Bill 112 which was the House regulatory Reform Bill which was cleared in this chamber on July 11 with a strong bipartisan vote of 84 to 28. I will be covering the Senate Bill 112 part of this particular Bill and Representative Samuelson and Representative McElraft for the remaining parts of House Bill 94 inside of this Bill. For the sake of brevity what I will cover is simply the changes that were made in the conference report regarding Senate Bill 112. The first change is in section 6c, page 7, in regards to allowing a student to have the right to counsel in regards to any quasi-judicial setting on a college campus. Essentially what we changed was that by allowing them to have an attorney it’s not a right, so in the case of that they cannot afford an attorney then one is not appointed to them at the expense of the taxpayer. They can have an advocate, it could be a parent, it could be a counselor or it could be an attorney but all of that is born at their expense. In the second part to that section as we are directing the community college system and each constituent institution over the next year to track how this is actually working and to prepare a report for us and this will be delivered next May on May 1, 2014. The second change is on page 9, this is regarding the local government pre-emption part, which received a lot of discussion and debate in this body on July 11th. We have removed that entire section and we’ve replaced it with essentially a study. We will be studying that aspect between now and the short session to determine the best course of action forward. We have put in its place that any local government enacting environmental ordinance that ordinance must be adopted unanimously by the board making that ordinance or it is not affective. This is a temporary measure and that will expire next October 1, 2014. The next change is in section 12, regarding the criminal records checks regarding childcare providers, we are actually removing this entire section. After we had reached an agreement with the Senate we were informed there are some issues with this and the Technical Corrections Bill, this entire section will be stripped from statute. Next change is on page 21, section 19a, and again this is an issue that was brought forward and discussed on the floor by Representative Carney, this is regarding carbon monoxide detectors. Trying to put together the right solution this is a little more complicated than what we had anticipated so we have taken a two-step approach to this initially we have additional language offered by Representative Jordan which will be in the Technical Corrections Bill. Essentially its 4 parts we directed the building code council to adopt rules regarding lodging establishments to install electrical hard wire carbon monoxide detectors. The second part in the interim requires battery operated or electrical plugin carbon monoxide detectors beginning October 1st. The third part is requiring them to be hard-wired October 1, 2014 in moving forward. The last part is directing again the building code ((NOTE: I tried to adjust the paragraphs, I hope they do not all run together, thanks))

Council and working with the department of health and human services and the commission for public health to study these requirements because what we did discover is that the way the language is crafted, it may not solve the problem that Representative Jordan experienced in his district. We received a heartfelt letter from the family of the young boy that died in that particular hotel, and the language as crafted would not have prevented his death. So with that information being brought forward, we’re going to fold that into our review between now and a short session and bring back to this body corrective language that would have prevented this young man’s death. The next part is actually… section 60 on page 68 and this is regarding the industrial commission. This received quite a bit of debate on the floor, and essentially the agreement with the Senate is that beginning July 1st of 2015, the Deputy Commissioners will be exempt from the State Personnel Act and essentially what that means is they are not exempt at this point, and they will be exempt as of July 1, 2015. We will be looking into this during the interim for one particular reason. When an employee of the state, when their compensation is set by statute the question is, is that person exempt or not exempt? And this extends past just folks that are at the industrial commission, and we need to look into that issue. Because a number of their compensations are set by statute or are keying off of compensation that is set in statute, and that is a question that we need to investigate and if we need to make changes we will do so in a short session. Mr. Speaker that concludes the changes regarding senate bill 112 as presented in house bill 74. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Samuelson is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it just occurred to me that Representative Moffitt only had to go over the changes, but since we haven’t voted on any of this on the 74 portion of it, I’m going to have to go through various parts of it and I’ll go as quickly as I can, but if you have questions later feel free to ask me. Also, there’s one thing that I don’t think I heard Representative Moffitt mention, but the original language that was in 74 which was the rules review process that did pass this legislative body is also in here. So the first section is all that review, rules review language that we’ve already passed, then the portions that he went over, and then starting on page 23, we have the new amended environmental laws. And I’m going to do them by section. Sections 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 are all air related. The first one, 25, appeals the model 2008 and subsequent model heavy-duty diesel requirements. This is basically recognizing that we had some rules out there that didn’t seem to apply in these vehicular areas and we’re asked to rem—the environmental ?? commission asked us to move this back, so they can keep everything standardized. Section 26 department directs ?? to study whether all of the counties covered under the ignition testing and maintenance program are needed in order to maintain propulsion ?? ozone standards. Living in a county that has to meet these standards, they just want to make sure that we’re addressing the right counties that need to do this, and I did have them verify that. Section 27 provides the EMC with the flexibility to determine whether rules are necessary for controlling the effects of complex sources on air quality. This is basically just directing them to look at it and decide what they need to do. Section 28 amends the rules in the North Carolina Administrative Code that pertains to open burning for land clearing or right away maintenance. The gist of this is under certain circumstances and only so many times, so you can’t just do this all the time, if you’re clearing a piece of property that you discover that is was really better to just go ahead and do the burning on site than to haul everything somewhere else and then do the burning. So this allows them to burn on site under certain restrictions. Section 29 provides with the exception of permits issued to Title 5 of the Clean Air Act, air quality permits must be issued for term of eight years. Sometime in the last year or two we did one that said permits up to eight years, turns out they didn’t move any of them, there’s no reason why they couldn’t so this just changes it so they must be issued for a term of eight years. Section 30 amends the ?? notice requirements for minor permits issued pursuant to the coastal area management plan, this has to do with permits, there are three things

Currently that you have to do if you're issuing the permits. On the major plans, it makes sense to have to go through all of them. On the minor ones, you're usually dealing just with your nextdoor neighbor. And so the other two requirements were mailing to the person, and then posting the notice, and it just didn't seem relevant - if it's just your adjoining neighbors that are impacted - that you also have to put an ad in the paper. So in this particular case, since you're mailing it to the person, you're posting it on site, they just won't also have to post it in the newspaper form. Then, section 33, we start off of air quality into others. Section 33 clarifies the process for appeal from civil penalties, when a local government is administering a state approved erosion and sediment control program. It clarifies how they go through that process and then says that the fines will me remitted to the civil and forfeiture fund. Section 34 has to do with allowing for reduced flow on wastewater systems. The wastewater systems that were constructed before we had low flow toilets and low flow showerheads, they needed to do some adjustments to account for the fact that people are using less water, and this allows them to make those adjustments. Section 35. This has to do with if you are drilling for a private drinking well, and it's being within 1000 feet of a known source of contamination. They need to make sure you're notified of that, so this is a public health and safety issue for people drilling wells near known contamination. Section 36 is strictly technically. It provides an underground storage tank and systems installed after a certain date. This is coordinating a couple of bills that had certain dates, and there was this little gap in there, and everybody knew what it was, but we just needed to correct it. Section 37's also conforming. It has to do with all these language where they change the federal law, and now we need to change the state law to confirm with it. Sections 38a and 38b were actually kind of fun to debate. This has to do with changing--if you ever get bit by something, you no longer get anti-venom. You have to get anti-venon. And so we had to change all of that for what it is we're gonna give you to make sure you don't get sick. And then it also has a section on what to do if some sort of reptile gets out and you call the police, or call the wildlife people to come and get it out of your yard. What kinds of things can they, cannot do, and how they have to report it? And that sort of thing. Section 39 allows the Wildlife Resources Commission to deal with the manner of take. They already deal with most of the rest of the systems to deal with the manner of take, and if somebody asks me a complicated question, I'm gonna call on a more avid hunter than I am to completely describe it. Section 40 has to do with a state--and there were double clarifications in here. But if the state, or a community college system, wants to purchase an ownership interest in real property that has known contamination, they have to get approval from the governor of the Council of State. The reason for this is that oftentimes, it would have to be the state that would have to go back and pay for that remediation, so we want to make sure that that's calculated in there. Section 40--oh, if you're doing routine maintenance on the fuel dispensing pumps, you don't have to get a building permit. This was mutually agreed upon. Section 42, if Dean are in the process of doing a schedule for entrance fees to the aquariums, they may also do it for peers operated by the aquariums and other sorts of things like that. Section 43 is contentious, so you will hear some debate on this. It repeals the Mountain Resources Planning Acts. So I will tell you that that was not a consensus provision, but it's in there. Section 44a and 44b has to do with, if a local government wants to enter into a development agreement on developable properties that have some sort of brown fields agreement, that there was this limit on 25 acres, and it was causing some problems, and everybody agreed that it didn't need to be there. And so it removes that provision. Section 45 has to do with pruning for a sign for your agro-tourism activities. These are not billboards, but if you're going to a wine tasting or a blueberry farm, and the right of way has allowed to grow up over the sign, this provides for pruning so that those signs can be seen. Section 46a and b is controversial. You probably have received some information on them. These are compliance boundaries. The short version on this is if you own a piece of property and you have... the one that most people hear about is a coal ash pond on it. So you have the coal ash pond on it, and there are these boundaries around it. There are rules about where the testing wells have to be drilled so that we can make sure that if there's any contamination in the ground water, that it's not crossing the boundary line. This has been established

rule for a long time. It has been contested. What this is doing is simply putting and codifying the existing language, which has been around for about 40 years, on how that’s supposed to be done. There are some people that disagree with that and don’t like it, but that is what I have been explained and what I understand after having gone through this many times, is it’s codifying the existing language. The wells will be inside the boundary line. They are there to catch contamination before it crosses the boundary line. The one thing that is new on this is, if multiple properties surrounding that particular parcel are owned by the same entity for the same purpose, then those boundary lines would be whole boundary line rather than each individual parcel. I do urge your support on that. Section 47. worked with the military. There were some of that radio towers to those towers exempt for the applicability to the military lands protection act, there’s no controversy on that. Section 48A. We had done, back a year a two ago, we allowed for landfills to be permitted, not just for five years, but for ten years. As part of that, there was a study and we’d done some stuff with fees. In there they had only put in the ability to construct, not the ability to operate, this adds the word that should have been in there all along about being able to operate them. Section 48...someone just gave me that one. It repeals a provision on land disturbing activity that had to do with increased vehicular access. This was something that was slipped into the budget several years ago that required, in certain areas, that you had to have a percentage of your paving had to be pervious. Over the years they have found various problems with this. Either because of cracking due to ice or what do you do if you have pervious pavement in a gasoline area where you don’t want it leaching through. There were a number of issues with that and so that repeals that provision there. Section 49 is a fee process when someone has violated a solid waste penalty. What this does is clarify that the money, when you’re calculating the penalty, that you calculate not only what it would have cost to repair it, but what did the violator save by doing that. That’s just adding a piece in there and codifying the existing rules on how that fee process is determined. Section 50 is if you want to store recycled materials on site in certain cases, like asphalt, pavement, roof shingles and such, it defines how high and how wide that pile can be and where it can be. Section 51 amends the definition built upon area to include certain types of impervious surfaces and partially impervious surfaces. It also puts in an exemption for gravel so gravel would be considered a pervious surface for the purposes of built-upon area. Bottom line, it’ll allow you to build on more of your lot if you’re using gravel. Section 52. If you have an ag pond on your property and stuff like grass grows up around it, you will not have to treat that as a repairing and buffer as long as that pond is entirely on your property and it’s only used for agricultural processes. We were having some problems with a pond that was used to water cows suddenly becoming a repairing and buffer, so it would take care of that. Section 53. If someone is dissatisfied with the decision of the environmental management commission currently if you are a first or second party in that you have 30 days in which to protest, but if you’re a third party you have longer than that and it’s thrown some kinks and stuff because people didn't know. They’d think everything was resolved. They were moving forward and find out later that somebody had a problem with it. This one basically puts them all on the same timetable so regardless what your relationship is in the case, you have the same 30 days. Section 54 was the one I just read about the pervious pavement. Section 55. Amends the notice for repairing and property owners that have joined property subject to an application for a dredge or field permit. There, again, if you’re right next door and your neighbor is doing something and they've got all the permits out there, this would require that you talk to them, but doesn't require you have to post in the paper and mail it to them. Section 56. This is for water treatment systems with expired authorizations. If nothing’s changing and they would have gotten it anyway but somehow or another it expired, this allows them to put that back into effect as long as there hasn't been any changes. It smooths the system. There was a particular case that had happened and they needed to get that in. Section 57 will sound very short, but the vast majority of your bill is actually section

57, it directs the Department of Natural Resources to combine the Division of Water Quality and the Division of Water Resources to create a new Division of Water Resources. They currently have the same chair, I mean the same Executive Director, this combines them. The reason for all the pages in your packet are because they had to go make conforming changes all through the rest of statute if you combine those two. Section 58 I will confess that I probably ought to have either Representative Millis or Catlin describe this, but it has to do with making sure that engineers and DNR are working properly together and so if you have questions about that section, it's been heavily worked out, please ask one of those two individuals. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, your time is expired, would you like to be recognized a second time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually that was my last one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well done. Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. Representative McElrath, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion. I have part 6, the solid waste reform provisions in that section 59. Section 59 brings us in line with federal law as far as making sure that we don't disproportionately, landfill doesn't disproportionately effect minority and low income communities protected by Title 6. Section 59.1 requires, an EIS is required for landfill and this DNR used to do that, this now requires a third party to do that and that third party has to be approved by DNR. Then the one mile buffer for the State Gamelands has now been, is now only for those buffers that were established before July 1st 2013, so this is prospective. Then we have a section that deletes the requirements for the annual cleaning of the ?? Collection Lines but provides that the lines must be cleaned as necessary for proper functioning and also requires them at least every 5 years to go in with the camera and look at the lines and make sure there's no buildup. Let's see. Then there's a requirement that when the Department has approved an alternative method of daily cover that all of the sedentary landfills use that same cover. then there's a requirement for each, and the environmentalist I think will like this a lot, each landfill that collects more than 240 tons of waste will have to provide research and development on alternative disposal technologies. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would ask if the lady would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As soon as I finish my comments I will. And then on, there also have to perform a feasibility study on landfill gas to energy or waste to energy technology. Section 59.2, there manufacturers of waste trucks are saying they can't make them, there's no such thing as leak proof, so they've gone to leak-resistant here and that we make sure that the water that accumulates from precipitation is not considered leaking. That's covered under there because some of the Highway Patrolman are stopping our Waste Industries trucks thinking that the water coming off of them in a rain is leaking when it's not, so that is not considered leaking. Precipitation. And there is a Section 59.3 that defines a ?? to exclude any liquid that adheres to the tires as the waste industry trucks are leaving the landfills or the transfer station is really another good area which will discourage our landfills from taking out of state trash and encourage them, by encouraging them to take other counties' and cities' trash, it allows the counties to levy a surcharge or the landfills to levy a surcharge from another town or county, so it makes it more lucrative for them to take in house, in state trash rather than to go out of state looking for those revenue dollars, so I think that's a good thing for our state and I certainly, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will yield to that question now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, the lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative McElrath, the

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] Quite frankly, I’ll be honest with you, I haven’t read Senate Bill 328. This language was provided when we they were doing their conference and we were asked to look at these. 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 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, is the first time that we’ve seen it here, I think. There was quite a bit of the Senate things in 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. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 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 if 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 the Senate has that 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 into recess and we’ve ordered 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 on a bill that we will take up this afternoon. The Chair does not expect to…because of the anticipated the 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 9 AM. 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. Without objection, House Bill 74 will be removed from the calendar and re-referred to the committee on Rules. Is there objections? So ordered. Representative Moore is recognized to send for the committee report. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, for rules calendar operation of the House, Senate Bill 380 Adjust Landfill permit fee timing. Favorable is House committee substitute, unfavorable is the Senate committee substitute.

Without objection to be added to today's calendar so ordered speaker. Representative Blust, please state your purpose, and the number of that bill and short title, please. [Speaker Changes] The short title would not make sense to you. This is the Senate bill 380, this is the Charlotte Air Port Bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. [Speaker Changes] And by that I mean it's uh, a just landfill permit fee, Representative Lucas, I thought I'd give you the actual content of the bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Uh, notice the gentleman is rignose for notice [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, any of you notice that the rules committee will meet five minutes after we recess to take up the one bill which was referred and potentially a couple of others. [Speaker Changes] Senate Bill 523 the clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] Ladies and gentlemen, this is back to the bill offered by Representative Brawley. This is the pending ammendment by Representative Jordan, and Representative Jordan is returning to his seat. The chair understands that Representative Jordan wishes to withdraw the prior ammendment, and the gentleman is recognized to send fourth an ammendment that the clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] Representative Jordan moves to ammend the bill on page one, line seventeen. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized to debate the ammendment. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker, now I've had my ice cream, I'm ready to go. Mr. Speaker, this is the change to the ammendment I was talking about earlier. Uh, it simply adds in the excise taxes as well as sales taxes. Um, so, it was that perfecting ammendment to which I referred. Um, the biggest problem with this bill and the problem from the Department of Revenue, has to do with sales tax failure to file, rather than the income tax provisions, because the money cannot be distributed. But with income taxes, it's a different matter. If you overpay income tax and don't file a return, you made a non-interest bearing lone to the state. The state has the full use of that money until the time the entity files a return. So what I'm doing in this ammendment is simply, I agree that we should have a uh, penalty for not filing your sales tax, the Department of Revenue says that's a problem, we need to fix it. But I don't want to take a sledge hammer to every tax payer, especially the ones who are due refunds, and penalize them, when, you know, as things happen, life happens, and you forget to file your report, or don't get to it. So that's basically what this ammendment does. Thank you. [Speaker Changes] Representative Brawley, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To debate the ammendment. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized to debate the ammendment. [Speaker Changes] Um, I'm still in the situation I was in earlier, the people of the Department of Revenue tell me this ammendment has the added affect of changing the way tax payers are treated, and that it makes the whole question moot, and we are back where we started. Um, so I would ask that you take their word for it because, as Socrates, who was once quoted as being a very brilliant man because he knew what he did not know, I know that I don't know this well enough to say the Department of Revenue is wrong. So I would ask that you join me in trusting them, defeat the ammendment. Let's pass the bill. Thank you. [Speaker Changes] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To see if Representative Brawley might yield for a question. [Speaker Changes] Representative Brawley, does the gentleman yield?

The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative. I was with you this morning and I may still be, but Representative Jordan makes a really valid point and like you, I know what I don’t know which is a ton of stuff, and I don’t have, I’m not at all comfortable that anybody knows exactly what we’re voting on. So I wonder if it’s worth, since we’re going to be here quite a bit tonight, just at least temporarily displacing so we could actually have some sense of which one of you we agree with, based on an interpretation from some legal staff or our staff. And since we don’t have that, I feel really uncomfortable voting on this at the moment. Would you be willing to temporarily displace just till we get at least our legal staff’s interpretation of it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, I appreciate the gentleman’s dilemma. I certainly feel the frustration also. I think if this bill had come up a week or two ago, we would have the time to do that. But if we do that today I think that will have the effect of killing the bill, and I, what I would prefer we do is we go ahead and pass it out and we have already amended it in finance committee, so it will end up in a conference committee. I would hope that we could send the Senate something to which they could agree. I know that the Senate had, Senate Rucho who was the primary contact had told me these issues had been raised in the finance committee in the Senate, and the arguments had come in that it did basically kill the effect of the bill and they withdrew, ended up passing it out without it. We had amendments that were trying to address the same thing in our finance committee and we ended up pulling them. Representative Stam had been asked to offer some of the same amendments that Representative Jordan showed me, he ran them through staff and our staff said it has the effect of killing the bill and Representative Stam agreed to withdraw his amendments and not offer them. And that’s why we didn’t debate these yesterday. And so we’re back again today at this point. I don’t know what to say. Every expert with the Department of Revenue that I have spoken with says the bill as amended is acceptable, will accomplish their goal. The proposed amendment offered by Representative Jordan will change the bill and it will turn a failure to file penalty into a failure to pay penalty, which will not achieve the goal that they’re attempting to achieve. And I’ve already, that’s where I am sir, and I appreciate your concern. [SPEAKER CHANGES]?? response, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Jordan a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, we’ve got opportunity to speak briefly off the floor about this matter, and I’d like to continue that conversation here briefly again. In regard to having statute that says that you must file a report, in terms of certainty from budgetary measures, while we want all tax payers to actually appear by that statute, to file a report in a timely manner, regardless if it’s income taxes and they may or may not have overpaid, that way that we as a state have certainty about what our numbers are from a fiscal and financial, what is your argument about why to exclude income taxes, regardless if they have overpaid or not? If the statute says you have to file a report, why should we do a carve-out like you’re trying to amend here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I appreciate the question. The short answer is because life happens. Things happen and you don’t get to file your report necessarily. And we’re talking about tax payers that very often owe, are owed by the state, so they’ve made an interest free loan to the state. The state’s able to use that money. We put it in our General Fund. We may have to refund it later but we have the use of it. We would like all tax payers to file all reports at all times. It simply cannot happen. And by the way, that helps me discuss for just a second the people that are asking me to run this are the accountants and the tax section of the Bar Association. So it’s folks that help people file returns and very often small business people can’t get help to file returns and their amounts are small. So I’m really just looking for some pro-business, customer-friendly that the Governor keeps talking about, help our small business. Let the Department of Revenue study why reports aren’t filed, what’s so complicated about them, and make it easier for our folks to file the reports when they pay their tax. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker

May I ask a follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, I definitely thank you for that response but I, and maybe this is not a question as much as it is a rhetorical question/statement, is that I still can't get past the aspect if that we're requiring individuals to file a report, business income or not alike and we have the ability to have extensions and all the like and they actually can file their taxes in a manner, whether they have overpay or underpay, I just can't understand why we're not, basically we could say, upholding the rule of law for all and not providing a carve out regardless of what type of business it may or may not be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know that I can expand on my previous answer. It may be just that you have a rhetorical question. It's just simply to help tax folks that things happen to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, briefly debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion, or debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, I definitely appreciate Representative Jordan's remarks as well as Representative Brawley's and this time I would urge you to vote against this amendment from the logic that I've heard here today I definitely think it's important for us to have a sense of certainty of where we actually understand what our numbers. I understand the heart behind Representative Jordan in this matter but if we as a law body here require individuals and businesses to file reports I'd say that we adhere to that and we have extensions, we have a process and I don't really think that we should carve out some for another. So as I stand right now I'll be not supporting the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, based on the debate that I have been hearing from others as well as the amendment sponsor I would inquire as to whether or not there are physical note has been prepared on this amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, has a physical note been prepared on this amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, as the Appropriations Chair, the gentleman does have the authority to request a physical note. Is that the implication of the inquiry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would request a physical note be prepared on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, the amendment will be withdrawn. The gentleman may consult with staff. We are now back on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Robert Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just an insurance agent and I was listening to Representative Glazier's question about why. It was my understanding, in the Finance Committee, the reason this bill is before us is because they're having trouble getting people who pay taxes, sales taxes, they pay their sales taxes but they don't tell them where it came from so they don't know how to redistribute it to the counties and the cities. So, in order to force them to pay their, I mean to file their forms they want a bill that penalizes them for not filing their forms. But the problem with that is the constitution says they have to treat all tax payers the same. Is that, if I'm wrong I feel sure somebody will stop me. They have to treat all tax payers the same therefore all tax payers that file a tax form are included in this bill and they did the best they could so that the personal income tax filer is not hurt and I encourage you to support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I totally understand what we're hearing from some of the people in support of this bill. I was praying that we could get Representative Jordan's amendment and then hopefully work over it and come back in the short session. As you all know our Governor went all over the state and said he's going to, "open the door, I'm going to stick the hand out, we're going to welcome business in the state of North Carolina." He hasn't been in office six months and you're going to tax every small business in the state of North Carolina, well we don't have any jobs. 80% of the jobs in North Carolina are created with small business. I understand totally we want to treat everyone equally but make bone about it, these small businesses are getting hindered daily and when you get a report from the Department of Revenue six months, a year later, that's the problem. That's what we need to fix. We need to fix problems in the Department of Revenue and hopefully the new administration said they were going to do that. Well we've been in session now, it's July, we're going out and we're going to pass a bill to collect a tax that only the small businesses are going to pay. You're going to hinder job creation. We all talked about it. I'm just saying we take a different approach and let's look how we can solve the problem

reaching our hand out some of these guys gonna create jobs for you. Far more jobs than the big guys. Isn't it interesting that we give all the big companies an incentive in millions of dollars to come here with their corporate lawyers and you give all the small businesses a fee to come here and try to create a job. So I would hope we take back, vote this down and come back with a common sense solution. You know it goes back, we spend millions of dollars going after the lady that makes tips as a waitress and meanwhile we're going to lunch with the corporate lawyers. So I hope that we can do something to work better with these small businesses and reach our hand out, and I would love to work with either one of the bill sponsors and hopefully come back in the short session to come up with something that will work better. I'm just not happy with this bill at this moment, I hope you'll vote against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the gentleman running this bill a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Bill Rawley, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Rawley, I was going to ask Rep. Jordan this, because I saw this language in his ammendment, but then I noticed that it was actually just copied from the language in the bill, so I need some clarification here. Under, I guess it's on lines 23 and 24, under "b" section there, it's saying, as I read it, it's saying that to file in a partnership for s corporation, and let's say I haven't sent my form and it's 5 months later, it says 25% of the amount of the tax, and then it defines the amount of the tax in those two lines as the tax imposed before credits and tax payments. So I want to make sure I understand that. If I owe $1000 in taxes, and I've already sent in $500, and I'm getting a $250 credit, so really I've paid everything but the $250, they're still going to fine me on the whole $1000? Is that what that's saying? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct, sir. And 5% of 1000 would be $50. And it would be a maximum of 5 months to a maximum fine of $250. But I would also point out sir, that that is not the fine for you as an individual taxpayer. That is the fine for a corporation or a partnership or a sub s corporation that has filed an income tax return for an out of state resident. So what we're talking about here are primarily these business taxes. And if I may also carry this further, in your discussion of the tax liablility, I had asked Rep. Stone earlier about how much he would submit in sales tax receipts. And he said it would run from $1000 most months to $2000 in his biggest month. His failure to file a penalty on a $1000 tax liability, 5% of that would be $50. So that's the fine we're talking about facing. So yes, there are fines in all of those cases, but they're not as egregious as one might believe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was using $1000 I think facetiously. I thought it was a very low figure, but maybe not. But you have raised another question now that I didn't understand in just reading the part we have here. Are you saying this only applies to taxpayers of flowthrough entities who reside out of state? This doesn't apply to people who reside inside North Carolina? [SPEAKER CHANGES] People with flow through income who are filing a D-400 in North Carolina. This does not apply. So if you are an out of state resident, but you are paying personal taxes in North Carolina, it does not apply to you. There is a special provision of the law that allows partnerships and subchapter s corporations that have partnership members who reside outside of North Carolina and have no other taxable income in North Carolina, to file on behalf of those taxpayers. And those taxpayers would not be hit with the fee, but the business entity in North Carolina that failed to file would be the one that would actually pay the fee. So this in no case is going to hit a individual taxpayer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that explanation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Jordan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Various speakers have pointed out problimes with this bill, and that's why it didn't sit well with me when it came out of finance, so I started looking into it and the concern from the Dept. of Revenue is taking care of sales taxes and other kinds of taxes, exise taxes that need to be distributed to local governments. And that's a legitimate concern, and I hope to work with them and my ammendment will help fix that. But I still have the feeling about the

On a revenue in my first session on the finance committee, we had an issue whether the Department of Revenue discovered tax refunds due to thousands of tax payers. The department discovered it through it's computer flagging program and the secretary at that time, different administration, but that secretary came and said well we discovered the refund, the tax payers don't know anything about it, so we need y'all to fix the law because we're not going to give them the money back until y'all change the law and let us do it. And my concern is for the people who are dealing with the Department of Revenue, let's make it customer friendly. Using a sledgehammer and forcing the tax payers to change in order to get these reports in is not helpful. If the department would look and see why these reports are complicated or difficult, put them online, let's help the taxpayers out. They're sending in their money. Let's not forget this. This issue is only about people who have sent in money they just haven't filed a report necessarily at the same time. They're ready to send their money in, let's make it easy for them to send the report in, that helps the Department of Revenue then allocate the money or do whatever needs to be done. This bill is an easy administrative way out so the agency doesn't have to do anything it's all on the taxpayers. It's business as usual and needs to be fixed. If we do it in the short session or whatever that's fine, but keep that in mind. That's what this bill is doing, forcing taxpayers to fit into the square hole with the Department of Revenue so the Department of Revenue can get away with the easy way. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, in the opinion of the chair the request of the fiscal note for the amendment by rule, if you interpret the rule, if you read the rule literally, would say that the bill needs to be removed from the calendar. I have checked with fiscal staff, and I have determined, and the chair was going to rule provided that the bill had a fiscal note that I was going to consider that in order and consider that an idiosyncrasy in rules that needed to be changed. However I have determined that the bill does not have a fiscal note and therefore in deference to the rule, we will temporarily displace this bill and direct the bill sponsor to get with fiscal staff and at the same time the fiscal note is being prepared for the amendment and then we will determine if one or both will be taken back up and the chair is really looking forward to it. So we are going to temporarily displace this bill and get fiscal staff to work. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendars, ?? bill 38 the clerk will read[SPEAKER CHANGES] house committee ?? a bills been ?? to create the Charlotte Douglas International Airport Commission under the city of Charlotte?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson please state your purpose[SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, we've already had a good bit of debate about this airport bill when it came through before and frankly I don't like to get into he said she said. I think one of the reporters asked me what things would be different. And I said I think I learned some more about how to communicate with my city and maybe in some places how not to communicate, but said I had thought we were close to some sort of, not a complete agreement, but some sort of consensus or working together last night things sort of didn't go that way. And yet in the midst of that, a good thing came out of it. And part of the good thing that came out of it was there was an idea that had floated, pieces had come from some people on the city side, pieces had come from some people on this side, and while we had tried floating it for weeks it had never really gained any traction and last night it appeared to gain traction. And then once we found out this morning that it had appeared what I thought was moving in one direction really wasn't a number of us had looked at it

...is a good resolution because the bill that you have before you addresses to our knowledge as many of the city's concerns about the authority in the airport that we can address and addresses many of the other side's concerns about the airport as we could address and also appears to put us in a position to avoid a protracted legal argument, a legal battle. One of the comments that we had heard in committee and beforehand is gee, you knew the city was going to sue you. That's right. We knew the city was going to sue you, we just didn't think it would take eighteen months to get a resolution, and we are convinced that the existing previous bill would still stand up in court. What we didn't expect is that the city would fire the aviation director. They said that he resigned. Who knows. I think he was fired and so there needed to be some resolution sooner on that. And then some people will say that this is a last minute bill, as I just said, the aspects of this have been floating for some time. In fact, we actually already had it drafted before this came up with a few tweaks and then put it forward today. But that said, here are the good things that have come out of this. The city, I'll put the city as having the assets. This will form a commission under the City of Charlotte Charter. They will still own the assets of the airport. They will still manage the bonds. They will still eminent domain authority. And they will also have the majority of appointments to the commission. In exchange, or the other side of it, this commission that will be created will be the operations piece. They will manage all the financial control because, of course, the revenues of the airport are not supposed to be in any way encumbered by the size of the city. So it will keep all the financial aspects completely separate in terms of the operations. It will give the commission the ability to hire, fire, and train employees. And it will also give the city the ability to, I mean the commission the ability to manage their own contracts, so they can either contract for services with the city or they can contract for services with someone else. I will also address the whole issue of what happens with the FAA. So the city will have the assets, the commission will have the operations, and then we added another piece that we believe was at the request of one of the city council members and we thought it was a good idea. We put in an oversight committee. And this oversight committee will be appointed. And they will look at this commission as it is working over the next two years and provide reports back to the city council and back to the commission to say yes, this is making progress, it's working or here are some things that might need tweaking. And that would give them that other outside set of eyes looking at it. So while none of us are thrilled with the way all this happened, we have tried for months and months and months and months to come to a resolution and come to something that we think is best for the airport and best for all the people involved. And I actually think that this will work really well. I liked the authority option, but I my court...my airport tied in court for a long, long time just to prove that what we did was a good idea. So this is another good idea that will address everybody's concerns in a more quickly and efficient manner, and I urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves the previous question. All those in favor vote Aye. All those opposed vote No. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 64 have voted in the affirmative. 45 in the negative. The motion passes. The chair understands that Representative Carney will be recognized for a period not to exceed three minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen of the House. I don't know what I rise to talk to you yet again about today. But it is, yet again, about the city of Charlotte's airport. Not mine. Not Representative Samuelson's. Not the Speaker's. Not Representative Alexander's. But the City of Charlotte's airport and the region of this state and indeed the state and the nation. I told you before it is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. There's only one question that I keep asking everybody. Do we need to have an authority? Do we need to change the restructuring of the governance in Charlotte to this .... [AUDIO ENDS]

...It's never been answered. It's never been debated in the public eye, with the city council. It appeared up here in January. Now let me just tell you I'm not a "he said she said" either, but by golly that's what this bill has become. You all sat in here and you either voted for this bill or you voted against it a week ago. We voted against it over here, argued for it, and said on this floor, out of my mouth I've got the tape from it. There will be a lawsuit. There are questions not answered. There are legal problems. The Treasurer's Office weighed in on the [Bond's?] situation. There was a lawsuit after the bill became law. There's a piece in here that you weren't told about that's about the former Aviation Director. It's time to take care of him, let's take care of the lawsuit, let's just bring back a new bill, let's repeal the other one while I submit to you that with a lawsuit pending and it is tied up now in the Court. There is an injunction. Temporary restraining injunction. If you read that, it says that this state body may not do anything to the airport. Says it. Legally. The judge wrote it. Supposed to be in Court next Monday. Now, you can vote to repeal that other bill. You can vote to do that. But according to that injunction, you cannot move ahead with a new bill and hurt the city. Not if it impacts the city airport. I've talked to Attorneys. That's the interpretation. Our city does not want this proposal that's before you. I have a string here, of emails that started last night late, came in this morning. The City Council has not seen it as a whole and yet again our airport is in an emergency situation, the State is in a lawsuit named when an emergency situation, and as Representative Carney said earlier, Representative Cotham said earlier, were then hijacked. [Speaker Changes]The lady's time has expired. [Speaker Changes Back] Thank you, Mister Speaker. Please vote no and let the Courts take care of this. [Speaker Changes] Representative Brawley is [recgnosed?] for a period not to exceed three minutes. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, Mister Speaker. We passed a bill, the Senate passed a bill, the City immediately followed a TRO. There was an Attorney for the authority that showed up, he was not allowed to speak. And only the City's attorney presented and a TRO was, temporary restraining order, and everybody's supposed to be locked in place. So the City decided that being locked in place meant firing Jerry Orr, he's been mentioned. There's a quote out of Europe - Jerry Orr is only the second best Airport Director in the entire world. The best director runs the airport in Dubai. We'd be happy to spend the next eighteen months in Court, it a competent manager was in charge of the airport. But a new Financial Director is in charge of the airport, reporting to a new Mayor and a new City Manager. We need somebody that knows how to run an airport. We need to resolve this. I'm as tired of talking about this airport as you are, but I can't stop talking about it until it's fixed and I know that those planes are still gonna be coming to North Carolina, and not Tennessee or Georgia. I ask your support. [Speaker Changes] Mister Speaker- [Speaker Changes] Representative Blust please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Inquiry of the Chair. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [Speaker Changes] Mister Speaker, are we under a TRO against voting on this bill or enacting this into law? [Speaker Changes] Representative Blust, we are not under a TRO. This bill does not exist under TRO based on the bill that was passed a week or so ago. The question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 380 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. Seventy have voted in the affirmative and forty two in the negative. The House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 380 has passed the second reading without objection. [Speaker Changes] Objection! [Speaker Changes] Objection! [Speaker Changes] Objection having been raised, the bill remains on the calendar.

House bill 552, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 552, a bill to entitle an act to provide a procedure to remove an area from a county service district. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will read the ammendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Sanderson moves to ammend the bill on page 1, lines 15 and 16, by inserting a new line to read: [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. McElraft, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion, and to speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is my bill, House bill 552, which gives counties the same authority cities do in order to take a group of people out of the service industry, I mean a service taxing district, if they have not received the services, counties are not required to do so, and all that the Senate did was put in a little ammendment that said that if there's a bond to pay off this, and they still have to pay the bond, then they can't even start this process. I hope you will concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Jackson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I had my light on to ask a question on the previous bill about the airport, I had not been allowed to ask questions in the rules committee, and going to Rep. Blust I was going to ask how the state of North Carolina as a party to that pending act- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Jackson, we are not on the bill, the gentleman is out of order. Further discussion, further debate on the motion? If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur on the Senate ammendment number 1 to House bill 552, 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 House has concurred on the Senate ammendment number 1 to House bill 552, the bill will be enrolled and sent to the governor. Special messages from the Senate, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, persuant to a message receieved July 24th, 2013, the House of Representative fails to concur with the Senate on ammendments 1 and number 2 on House bill 417, a bill to be entitled an act to modify the internal auditing statutes applicable to a large state department's university system, and requests conferees. President Pro Temp appoints Sen. Brock, Chair, Senators Tillman, Soucek, Davies, and Tucker on part of the Senate to confer with like committee appointed by ?? differences arise may be resolved. Respectfully, Sarah Lang, Principal Clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, It's ordered that ?? be sent to the House of Representatives with information the Senate fails to concur in the House committee substitute to Senate bill 236, a bill to entitle an act to authorize counties to assume responsibility of construction, improvement, ownership, and acquisition of public school property, and requests conferees, President Pro Temp appoints Sen. Apodaca Chair, Senators Newton, Brunstetter, and Hunt on the part of the Senate, to confer with like committee appointed by your honorable body and differences that arise may be resolved respectfully, Sarah Lang, Principle Clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stam is recognized to send forth the conference report, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the conferees appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on Senate bill 182, a bill to entitle an act to eliminate appeals for infractions, to modify appeals to the Superior Court if probation recvocations which a defendant has waived hearing, to ammend the law pertaining to resentencing upon the reversal of sentences or appelate review and to make changes regarding the procedures for motion for appropriate relief and to reclassify certain misdemeanors as infractions, the conferees recommend that the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report, conferees for the Senate: Sen. Brunstetter, Chair, Senators Brown and Goolsby. Conferees for the House of Represtatives, Rep. Stam, Chair, Representatives McGrady and Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, to be added to today's calendar. So ordered, ratification of bills and resolutions, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The enrolling clerk reports the following bills to be ratified: For presentation to the Governor, Senate bill 18, an act to ?? the locksmith licensing act, Senate bill 470, an act to prohibit consumption of malt beverages or unfortified wine on the premises

businesses ?? way ?? issued ??. Senate bill 547, an act to ammend the ?? of government guaranteed energy saving contracts for governmental units. House bill 669, an act to appoint persons to various public offices upon the recommendation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Temp of the Senate. House bill 727, an act to allow the Divison of Motor Vehicles to issure a salvage certificate of title to an insurance company or used car dealer in certain situations. House bill 834, an act to enhance the ?? effeciency of state government by modernizing the state system of Human Resources management. The following bills ?? ratified, properly enrolled and presented to the office of the Secretary of State. House bill 195, an act to extend the authority of the town ?? to use ?? bill delivery method. House bill 1050, an act annexing certain described property to the corporate limits of the city of ?? city. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chaptered bills be noted. Senate bill 236, the clerk will read. The chair since corrects it. Senate bill 182, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President ?? Speaker of the House of Representatives, conference appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on Senate bill 182, a bill to entitle an act to eliminate bills for infractions to modify bills to the Superior Court. The conferees recommend that the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report, conferees for the Senate, Sen. Brunstetter, Chair, Senators Brown and Goolsby. Conferees for the House of Represntatives, Rep. Stam, Chair, Representatives McGrady and Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To move that we adopt the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. This is the bill that Rep. Glazier managed on the floor limiting some appeals to Superior Court, cutting out the middle man. The Senate didn't concur, but it turned out they did not actually disagree with us on anything. Rather there were some of the provisions that conflicted with what had already been done on the budget, with respect to how infractions and 3rd class misdemeanors were classified. So we just made them consistant in the conference report, but the substance of the bill is the same as what you've already approved twice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady may state her inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I was looking at the dashboard and we did an ammendment to H552, but we have Senate bill 552, and I know we've gone beyond that, but I just wanted to point that out because I got really confused there for a minute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Avila, we will come back to that. We're consulting with staff now to sort that out. The matter before us is the motion on the conference report for Senate bill 182. Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the adoption of the conference report for Senate bill 182. 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. 110 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative, the conference report is adopted. The Senate will be so notified. Rep. Avila, you've proven to have an eagle eye, that was a typographical error on the dashboard and it has been corrected. House bill 417, the clerk will read. Rep. Hastings is recognized to send forth the conference report, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the conferees appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House bill 417, a bill to entitle an act to modify the internal auditing statutes applicable to large state departments and university system, the conferees recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives to adopt this report, conferees for the Senate: Sen. Brock, Chair, Senators Tillman, Soucek, Davis, and Tucker. Conferees for the House of Representatives: Rep. Hastings, Chair, Representatives Tim Moore and Hager.

Without objection to be added to the calendar for immediate consideration. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the conferees appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House Bill 417, a bill entitled to enact to modify internal auditing statutes. The conferees recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate: Senator Brock, chair; Senators Tillman, Soucek, Davis, and Tucker. Conferees for the House: Representative Hastings, chair; Representatives Tim Moore and Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hastings is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker, to adopt the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. Does the gentleman wish to debate the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's of...we fully vetted this bill in numerous committees, and it's been before us before, and I would just appreciate your support. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the adoption of the conference report. For House Bill 417, all in favor vote Aye, all opposed vote No. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 111 having voted affirmative and one in the negative. The conference report has been adopted for House Bill 417. The Senate will be so notified. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, in consultation with the staff and with Representative McGrady, the chair has ruled that House Bill 74, the matter of the section that the gentleman from Henderson was concerned with was on the regulatory requirements is applicable to sanitary landfills. It has been determined that that matter has been properly before a committee, and I believe that the gentleman from Henderson no longer wishes that the bill be referred to committee. Is that correct, Representative McGrady? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I withdraw my objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Therefore, the bill, House Bill 74, is currently in Rules. Without objection, the chair moves that House Bill 74 be removed from the Committee on Rules and placed on the calendar for immediate consideration. Is there objection? So ordered. Representative Terry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To please ask permission to change my vote to Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as having voted Aye on House Bill 417. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It was not my intention. Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 417, the Clerk will read. Oh, I'm sorry. Love that bill so much. House Bill 74 the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, conferees appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House Bill 74, a bill entitled to enact and approve. Conferees recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt and support. Conferees for the Senate: Senator Jackson, chair; Senators Brock, Brown, and Wade. Conferees for the House of Representatives: Representative Moffitt, chair; Representatives Murray, Millis, and Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask general aid from Mecklenberg, Representative Samuelson, a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative. I was going to ask you this earlier, but when the bill got displaced, so I just let it go. You mentioned a pond and the area around the pond had grown up for agricultural use. What you didn't mention is what if that pond is a common pond to multiple owners of property but it pretty much abutts their properties. Do you know if that is addressed in the same fashion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll clarify from staff, my understanding was the criteria was is it for agriculture uses. And as long as the pond was totally on their, as I recall, totally on their property and for agricultural uses then it didn't have to meet these riparian buffer requirements. And the assumption there was it was all on that one property. I will verify with staff. I don't think that ... you're talking about if there's several agricultural uses that share an area and there's a pond that crosses a couple of boundary lines? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll figure...I'll find out for sure, but my understanding was as long as it's for agricultural purposes it doesn't have to have those riparian buffer issues. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElraft, the chair recalls that you were in the middle of your explanation of that section. Would the lady like to return to that? [AUDIO ENDS]

Debate.[SPEAKER CHANGES] And thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady. Well done. That representative McGrady I do believe that gentlemen was about to be recognized in turn to debate the bill. Or I'm sorry to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. Colleagues, I used the rules for a minute to really try to highlight one of the issues with this bill. And in both, I want to say on front end the sponsors of the bill have worked with me as best the could to try to keep me informed on things that're moving that were obviously of interest to me. But that largely was a function of the fact that I've worked with them in the past. And if you were another member of this body, probably wouldn't have the access to what was going on in the same way that I did. And that's probably not right. One of the two original bills here I actually was a primary co-sponsor on. When we introduced it had two sections. When it came out of the house it had six. When it came back from the senate it had 36. At that point it got combined with another bill and now its bounced back and forth. And it ends up with, I think 61. The last few portions came directly out of a bill that really had nothing to do with this bill at all. They just arrived at a conference committee. So I would tell you, I think we could have gotten a better bill here if we'd used our normal processes. There's two or three of the issues here I think could have been resolved, but they aren't. And the bill is not as good as it could be. I wanna just point out four or five sections that are particularly problematical. And I'll just refer to the page. There's been discussion about the billboard portion of bill. I have a long history on billboards. The billboard industry ?? about 90% of what it wanted last time. And in this portion of the bill it's basically coming back and getting some more. And I know my colleagues in the oil and gas area of the state have had the same experience on some agreements that they had. And it just seems to be the norm. The billboard provision isn't as bad as it was when it was initially provided to representative Moffitt who used very good judgement to cut it back. But the fact is we're continuing the trend of loosening and restricting local government's role in managing billboards. The section of the bill that used to deal with local preemption got stripped out of the bill but I think it's fair to say that many members of the general assembly just hate rules. And we just haven't figured out how to stop state agencies and local governments from adopting rules without also preventing them from doing things that need to be done to comply with federal law or protect public health and safety. This bill adds a one year moratorium on adoption of local government ordinances that regulate something already addressed by state or federal environmental rules. That's on page, beginning of page nine I believe. The earlier bill tried to address this as I said through the local preemption provision. While I'm sure the one year moratorium to allow a legislative study of local preemption is intended to be a compromise, it creates some problems. One, many local ordinances deal with issues that also are regulated by the state environmental agencies because state rules and permits issued require the state, sometimes require the adoption of a local ordinance. Secondly, some of the most fundamental responsibilities of local government such as addressing nuisance conditions, regulating development, maintaining public infrastructure, involve activities also regulate to some degree by the state environmental agencies. And this one was that was represented the Gelrath raise. State storm water rules are in place to protect water quality. But local governments may find it necessary to adopt storm water standards to manage a local flooding problem. Under this bill the existence of a state and storm water rules would prevent the local government from adopting a local storm water ordinance unless there was a unanimous agreement on the content of the ordinance.

The third issue has been a particularly difficult one for me and this is the Mountain Resources Commission. The reason why this provision is in the bill is sitting back in Seat 120. This provision was passed by then Senator Joe [Sanquin? Not found in list] and when he was defeated in a reelection bid by Senator [Heis? Not found in list], Senator [Heis?] made it his goal to get rid of this. Well, I arrived on the scene last time and surprisingly I took the law and I made some changes and the Senate and the House agreed to those changes to try to address some real issues about appointment of Boards and this sort of thing. But, low and behold on every sort of bill we've come across, there's been this provision to knock out the Mountain Resources Commission. And now it's going to be accomplished. And they brought it to the House in a form that we can't address. I will say this is very personal to me because, as some of you remember back when we had the fracking debate a year ago, we got within one vote of getting it passed several times and I was on the other side of that vote, and there was an express offer to not kill the Mountain Resources Commission if I would give them my vote. I didn't, and so to some extent, Senator [Quin?], you and I have something in common. We're both getting payback from the Senate on this one. Mountain Resource Commission - no money involved. Right now, Representative Whitmire and I were at their last meeting. They're looking at how Western North Carolina can better work with the military. I don't understand it. Let me move on. The compliance behind boundaries Representative Samuelson has touched on. Duke Energy says it doesn't change anything of law. Other people say it does. There are pending lawsuits. This is one of the ones I think we could have done better. I think we could have worked this one through if we'd just gotten [under?] the table, but we didn't. We just took one side of the argument and put it in the law. And we shouldn't do that. Solid Waste Reform, this is the last section of the bill. This bill has never been considered by the House. It was brought into the Conference Committee at the last - four people decided. Three people from our side decided to add this to this bill. According to some of the Speaker's staff, this is the good portion of this land bill. Oh, great. This is the good portion, could you imagine what the rest of the bill's like? This is bad procedure and the rules are being used against us to adopt something that should have seen the light of day. If it's so good, we can take it up. And finally, and this is something that Representative Moffitt and I have debated somewhat with Representative Samuelson. If you don't realize it, this bill amends and adopts a huge number of rules. And we've made it really hard to make rules, because we don't like them. I understand that, but now having made it really hard, what are we doing? We're coming back and adopting themselves. So sections 20, 21, 22, 28, 39, 52, 59.2 are all provisions here where we're adopting or amending rules. I'll tell ya, that's a mistake. We start down that road, we're going in the wrong direction. Anyway, I'll finish up by just saying I don't think we should concur. The bill is gonna pass, it's been greased. It's an awful process. There are plenty of really good provisions in this bill, but I can't support it given some of the provisions that are in here. And because of the process and the politics that have been played in adopting this bill. I urge you to vote no. [Speaker Changes] Representative Brody, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Well thank you Mister Speaker. I'd like to ask a question of Representative McElraft, please. [Speaker Changes] Representative McElraft, do you yield? [Speaker Changes] I do. [Speaker Changes] She yields. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, ma'am. Section 59.4 in the underlying section, it says there's a fee and there's a surcharge. I'd like to ask is that...

Representative: …is the fee and surcharge the same thing, just by other words, or are they actually separate entities? Representative: I think they would be separate entities. The fee is what they charge the counties now to bring their trash in. The surcharge would actually be above and beyond that. They could actually put that in the contract. That entices them to go to counties and cities and say we have some extra capacity and I know that you have been sending yours to SC and that they have shut down a landfill in SC. So we are going to have some of our counties bringing them back to here. This allows them to do that surcharge here where we can take our trash and nto start looking elsewhere to bring other states’ trash in. Representative: Follow up please? Speaker: Senator do you yield to a follow up? Representative: I will try to make my answers shorter next time, sorry. Representative: No thank you very much, I appreciate that. Going a little bit further than the surcharge, there really are no boundaries or limitations to that, that I could see in here. So the landfill of the county could decide what they want to charge. Representative: Yes I do believe they can. We did not want to dictate what they could charge. We did not think price fixing was a good idea either. Representative: Thank you. Speaker: Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. Representative: To debate the bill. Speaker: The lady has the floor to debate the motion. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentleman of the house. I share many of Representative McGrady’s concerns on the process and on the substance of the bill. I think it is true that we have created a situation where it is impossible for the state agencies to enact rules so they are coming to us and we are doing it by statute, instead of the normal agency process, which I think is more deliberative and more expertise involved. I would like to give some credit to whoever was in charge of removing the provision that would have repealed the protest petition. That was a great concern to the citizens of Greensborough and many citizens across the state who have used this tool effectively to negotiate growth in their neighborhoods and communities, but there are a lot of problematic provisions in this bill. I have debated a couple of times on house bill 74, the original version, that had us engage in this periodic reviews of rules and automatic expiration of rules. I think it is a problem and I guess we have just reorganized the division of water quality and the division of water resources, cut their budget by 15%, not reduce the responsibilities, but now we have jumped up the wetlands and water quality rules for the first reviews. I do not know how deener is going to do that without funding and we are not providing that for him, so I think it is going to be a problem. I think that it is a problem that we have seemed to single out local governments for the environmental rules. We are going to preempt them for a year unless we have unanimous approval of a governing body, I think that is a problem. I am particularly concerned about compliance boundary, as is Representative McGrady. I am sorry I did not have color copies of this, but I have distributed them out. The rubber band plant in Charlotte, what effectively the compliance boundary would do, would push it to the other side of the [xx] River, which flows directly into the drinking water source for the City of Charlotte. There is documented coal ash intoxication. Coal ash is a toxic soup of selenium, mercury, zinc, arsenic, valium, cadium, you name it – tons of carcinogens and neurotoxins. That is documented – they found these in the water supply of Charlotte. We have also got it documented in Asheville and at the [xx] Plant and in Wilmington. So we are now loosening out the boundaries for monitoring and I think that is a terrible direction to go in. I am also concerned about the landfill provisions. This body worked very hard back in 2007 to create a stakeholder engaged compromise on landfill regulations. We did not have good landfill regulations. We had these mega dump sites that were supposed to be located in east NC without the proper protections. So we worked with all sides and came up with what I thought was a pretty good bill that enacted good regulations to protect the neighbors and the citizens and the natural resources of this state. These provisions do lift some of those restrictions. One in particular, that is troubling to me, is the environment justice provision. We know that many of these dumps end up in low income and minority communities and we have state restrictions that are stronger than the federal restrictions, but now we are going to rely on the federal restrictions. I think that is wrong. Becky Carney distributed this buffer out. Now to the credit of the mangers of this bill, they did not remove the buffer protections that were contained in senate bill 328, but we are

Now allowing no more buffer protections for future game lands. So you see this map, this colored map that's on your desk, we won't be having those buffer protections for any other future game lands, and I think that's wrong. I'm very troubled by so many provisions in this bill. I urge you to vote no. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tine, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative McElraft would yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElraft, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative. Although we just spoke about 328 just a little bit with her comments a moment ago, I just want to make absolutely sure, 328 which has been discussed some here on the floor, some of the language has found its way here. There's been major concern about major, large dumps especially in Northeast North Carolina but in some of the other areas as well. Does this bill in any way allow those super dumps to come in the same way that 328 did? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No it does not. It does not take away those buffers at all. Those buffers are still in place that were in place yesterday. When this bill passes they will still be in place. The only buffers that will be new game lands, if you put new game lands in, and you put a buffer around that, you won't be able to do any game lands that started after July the first. What we're finding out is probably anybody can designate a game land in one day and that we have to be careful here. We do have trash in North Carolina. South Carolina just closed a landfill. We have to be able to permit landfills in this state, or we won't know where we're gonna put our own trash. So, and that's why we're encouraging in state trash rather than the out of state trash, and so that buffer will not prevent landfills, smaller landfills from coming just because you designate your land as a game land. So we did put that, that one restriction in there but it in no way will give you the mega landfills. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Millis will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis, do you yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do, mister Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. First of all, I want to compliment you on all your hard work on this bill and your thoughtful attention to details. This question is on the most recent addition, which is the landfill solid waste portion of it. The idea to take, I did go through the draft bill that was in the Senate, I did send it to my local landfill people and my county leaders and to make sure that everything was okay and the one issue that came up that is in this conference report is the trash truck issue, whether we're going from leak proof to leak resistant, and by the way my granddaughter calls them dirty diaper trucks, but I just was just curious is, can you justify or explain whether or not that's gonna be an environmental concern. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin, thank you for that question. In regard to this portion of the bill, when you actually read the actual, the title of that provision, I had the same question sometime back in regard to, if we're going from leak proof to leak resistant, are we in any way, shape, or form relaxing or lowering the bar on the standards that we have for actually hauling in, collecting, waste here in North Carolina. And I started to ask some questions, do some research, and do some study on this, and what I found is that in no way, shape, or form are we lowering our standard or are we relaxing our regulation in regard to this. The appearance would be such, but let me explain. To be specific, if you're looking at Section 59 of the bill, as well as it ties into, let me see here, which is Section 59.2F of the bill that pretty much ends it out. What we're doing here is that we are codifying in statute what the existing implementation by rule is in regard to the collection and transport, the collection and haul of trash here in North Carolina. So by no way, shape, or form are we relaxing, reducing the regulation, but we're actually codifying in statute what the current rule is. In addition I must say, in regard to what's going on in Section 59.2 through A, B through C and D, it is not the general assembly that is making the decisions of the amendment to go from leak proof to leak resistant, but is actually the commission.

So I hope you would appreciate the fact that is not political opinion, that is going to make this amendment, but rather, technical expertise so that we make sure that we uphold our responsibility as a body to protect the environment as well as the aesthetics here in this state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You yield for a follow up, Representative Millis ? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The leakage is more along the lines of rainfall input. Could you explain that, please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, Representative Catlin. In regard to the need to amend the rule, by way of this statute here, is that there is issue from the implementation of moisture on the tire of the actual waste collection haul vehicle, as well as there is improper, egregious enforcement on the fact during a rain event, if you actually have precipitation washing across the actual vehicle, not the actual trash ledge shape from the vehicle, but actually the rain fall off the vehicle that we're basically trying to establish in statute, that that egregious and improper enforcement is not further occurring in this state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to debate the bill, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentlemen recognized to debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for your clarification, Representative Millis. There are some good things in this bill, one of them that we haven't talked a lot about is we've added a provision where well owners that are installing a new well are going to be notified if they're doing their well near known contamination, which is a very good public health issue. And at the same we've taken out the disclosure, or restrictions on the fracking waste, so it's very aquifer friendly. And to add to what Representative Samuelson said on Section 46, we did amend the rules to protect our limestone aquifers in the compliance boundaries, and I'd like to clarify a point that Representative Harrison brought up is even though the compliance boundary might be on the other side of a river, remediation is required and the compliance boundary is in trouble if it impacts the water quality standard in any classified waters of the state; so, that does not mean they can contaminate the river. And also, if there is any imminent hazard or threat to the environment, public health, or safety, the compliance boundary goes out the window and remediation has to take effect, and if it impacts bedrock or coastal aquifers, limestone aquifers, it has to be remediated. I think they've done a good job on that. All in all this is not the process I would recommend for a regulatory reform. I think each bill going through the process separately is the way to do it, but we have what we have. I think, overall, this has been very carefully coordinated and debated in the conference committee, and I commend the bill to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor to debate conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] When the first House Bill, '74, went over, I was on regulatory reform. I voted for that bill. I thought we did a good job, common sense. This is not regulatory reform when it comes back. It is packed with poison pills from the Senate. It's packed with pity political agendas, and we've just ?? among ourselves as a House, we have been hoodwinked on this bill, on our good efforts. Our efforts, all session long, have just been polluted, I can tell you that. When we talk about poor regulatory reform and rule making, what this is is political opinion versus agency and stakeholder expertise, that's where the rules are coming from. Representative McGrady laid out, seven or eight of them right there. Exactly the opposite direction of a whole session's efforts in regulatory reform. ??, landfills, and one that is particularly

Sad for me is the loss of our Mountain Resource Commission. Started in 2008, 4 solid years of hard work, by some of the strongest volunteers and civic and regional leaders of the mountains. When I came down here in 2003, the first time from the mountains, the mountain delegation was like a covey of quail. You couldn't get them together for anything. We had no agenda. It was a Democrat House, Democrat Senate, Democrat governor, but regionally the mountains were not represented in this general assembly. We were not together. By contrast, the urban cores were tight, unlike this general assembly, the Democrats and Republicans in every urban core stuck together and by golly, they got their share. The mountains were disarrayed, no plan, no strategy, no communication. We didn't get a thing, we just got our pockets picked. So we looked at how can we as a region look at our assets, look at our future, look at things we have in common, start working together, start developing strategies and communication lines, and build this infrastructure to communicate to our legislature, and our federal congress as a region, to get our share, to get represented as a region with power. That's what the resource commission has been about. It's not regulatory, it was not intended to be regulatory, but it is about collaborating and working together. And for petty political reasons we're unraveling the one thing that's working to pull us together as a mountain region. Democrat and Republican, Independent. I've represented 8 of these counties, probably almost half of them, and they're all different. I mean, when you politic in a mountain, when you cross a mountain range and go through a gap, you're in another world. Another group of political constituents. Another group of families with histories that are just very different and interesting. But we, for the first time, created an institution to help us pull together. They rotate the meetings, bimonthly meetings from local government to local government all over the region, have great participation. And again, the people are appointed by the speaker, the pro tem, the governor, some standing members, just first class citizens from the mountains and we're just throwing it out the window. So, I just don't look at this as good for the state, certainly not good for my end of the state, and I ask you to not concur and vote no on this motion. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Jordan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman's recognized for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]No, debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Debate the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES]The current motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman's recognized to debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Ah, thank you, conference report. I'm standing here for a couple of points. First of all, I think we can use this bill as an example of some of the processed that frustrate a lot of us. Not because this bill was particularly difficult, there were some things in it but, we've had to deal with a lot of things down here which have things we like and things we don't like, and we have to decide whether to vote or not, and our constituents, we need to help educate them because I get emails, Why didn't you vote against that thing because it had this. You're right, it did, but it also had 10 other great things, and I had to balance and make a choice, and I think that's why, in a representative government, they send us down here to do that, so we have a lot of that to talk about. The specific points here, the Mountain Resource Commission concerns me greatly too. I feel like I'm piling on or something but, being from the mountains, we're often overlooked, and I thought that gave us one way that we can get together and talk about our current issues and things that we have in common. And it didn't cost the state any money, but it's in this bill. Something that's not in this bill, that started in this bill and also concerns me

Me is, the protest petition. It's been taken back out so that it stays, and I don't like that. That's a problem. Remember, that's the thing that lets a 5% owner of the boundary of a property to create an ultra majority vote, an ultra majority vote. I don't even know if we have that big a vote anywhere else in our law, but it made that. We took it out and for some reason it got back in. That's a shame. I don't like that either. So something has been taken out, something that was in there and taken out. But even with that and even with other things in there, the main reason that I'm gonna be voting for this bill, even if there was nothing else, has to do with Section 19. Section 19 regards the issue of carbon monoxide. And the reason this is of particular interest to me, as it really should be for everyone, is because I stand here with heavy heart because it's not a theoretical issue. It's an actual, practical thing that has happened. In my district three people are dead since April because of carbon monoxide in lodgings. If this bill had a hundred other things that I didn't like I'd still vote for it because this issue is vital. What we're doing is making the Building Code Council work to adopt rules that going forward these detectors will be in new construction. That's why we do regulations. When we talk regulatory reform our critics want to say that we want to get rid of all rules. That's absolutely not true. We have rules for a reason. If rules are here to protect public health and safety, we need to pass them. This is clearly one that does that. Section 19b requires installation of battery operated or electrical detectors beginning this October until the short session when we can work on some other things. So we've got something in place for the immediate future because again, this is not a theoretical issue that people might be harmed. A legislator in West Virginia has contacted us. They had a death in 2012 from the same thing that happened in my district. Carbon monoxide is killing people. Starting October 1, 2014, we're gonna require the installation of electrical hard wire detectors. Now we're taking a little bit of time to look at this because there's a lot of issues to look at. If you look at the definitions in this bill, any rooms, sleeping room that shares a common wall, floor or ceiling with an enclosed space having a fossil fuel burning heater, appliance or fireplace, because that's where the carbon monoxide comes from. The problem we had discovered from the family of some of the victims is that this language doesn't actually help prevent those deaths that happened in my district. That's why we need to look at this and make sure we do it right, to do it right, because in that case the room was next to the exhaust. It wasn't right there adjoining the room with the heater. In West Virginia, the room was several floors up. So we've go to do it right. In the meantime however, we've got the battery powered and electrical so we've got something going on for the immediate future to help fix this. We're gonna fix it in the future. We're directing a study. These folks, the Building Code Council, Department of Health and Human Services and Commission for Public Health are going to report to us at the short session about what they've discovered, how we can fix this, how we can do it right, how we can save people, how we can show that these rules, when they're for public health and safety, we can all together and support. So, if for nothing else than that one section, my decision is to vote for this bill. If nothing else except for this one section, I would strongly urge you to consider voting for this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Baumgartner, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Conference report, thank you, sir. I'd like to say thank you to the people that worked on this. This is 68 pages of hard, dry, technical information that was hard to put together and hard to wade through, and I think this is an integral part of becoming more business friendly, getting our economy moving and growing. It's got things in it that I particularly, I'm not happy with, but overall it's a good bill and a good step in the right direction, and I urge you to vote for it. And I'd like to personally thank Representative Millis for all the work he's done on this. I know how hard all this technical

[0:00:00.0] …To get done and this fits together with tax reform, it fits together with unemployment insurance reform, it fits together with a budget we just passed and it’s a step in right direction and I look forward to go and much further in the future, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to speak on the conference report for second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think, we set a good bill over, my point is we have got a poison pill bag this doesn’t deserve the concurrence of this body I really appreciate Representative Jordan’s interest in public health the loss of three individuals in his district, their lives, dead, I just have to say it’s not exactly the ___[01:05] here but if we don’t get around to reconsidering medicate expansion each one of us… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ___[01:17] purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ___[Inaudible] he is going on everything with the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen if you will please stick to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do recognize I’m a little off kilter but I just wanna mention what a wonderful phrase Representative Jordan used for nothing else but 20 or 30 lives in each of our districts please consider it, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ness please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly speak on the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, I wanna give a credit here to Representative Moffat, Representative Samuelson and all those who got their hand to speech the legislation and to close I would like to briefly say that in regard to public health, public safety and our responsibility to the environment of the state that regulation does have a role in this chamber but it’s very good for us to look at the efficiency and the effectiveness of the regulations that we have in the books that put a yoke and a burden on our citizen’s back at home and this is exactly what that bill does line-by-line, page-by-page it goes through the effectiveness and the efficiency of our regulatory environment here in the State and I commend this bill to you all and I hope that you all will vote green. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the house is the adoption of the conference report to House Bill 74 those in favor vote aye, those oppose vote no, the clerk will open the machine. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 76 having voted in the affirmative and 36 in the negative, the conference report for House Bill 74 is adopted and remains on the calendar. Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker to ask that the adjournment resolution which I found earlier this afternoon the given it’s first reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Adjournment resolution temp 23, adjournment resolution adjourning the 2013 regular session of the general assembly to update certain and limiting the matters that maybe considered upon reconvene house offices and senate concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I would move that the adjournment resolution be added to today’s calendar for immediate consideration. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without object so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, House Resolution 1023, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Joint Resolution 1023: A joint resolution adjourning the 2013 regular session of the general assembly to a date certain and limiting the matters that may be considered upon reconvening. The houses office senate concurring. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, part of the sometimes in this as rules Chairman I get to do, I have to handle controversial bills and make motions that always don’t make folks happy but I think this is one that should make everybody happy. [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]

[0:00:00.0] This is the Adjournment Resolution and as you will see from the Adjournment Resolution it states that the house would adjourn tomorrow, it has the standard language that would allow us that states we are gonna reconvene on May 14th, 2014 also authorizes the interim activities to occur during the interim it is essentially the standard Adjournment Resolution that we have every year, it reflects the rules in terms of deadlines and so forth I will be glad to get into the weeds, the only the favor the one really wants to but this is essentially your bus ticket home if you wanna out of this place tomorrow, ___[00:40] the body support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ford please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Moore a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore do you yell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will but the longer you ask me a question is a longer before you can come to that ___[00:55] you will tell me about? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is very important and this is more important than anything you see at this whole section. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [Chuckle] [SPEAKER CHANGES] And if I’m reading correctly, ____[01:14] the 26th. That’s when we come back… [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry Representative ___[01:18] I’m so happy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Of the 14th of May, I don’t know if I will be here at noon tomorrow or not but… [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thought Representative Moore I was so happy and read into resolution but thank you so much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It was the tears of joy of squaring your vision I’m sure what you are reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate? If not the question before the house is the adoption of House Resolution 1023 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 108 having voted in the affirmative and 2 in the negative, House Joint Resolution 1023 has passed his second reading and we will without objection read it third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Resolution Senate concurring. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luke please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Moore would yell for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore do you yell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore I noticed that on with respect in section 2 on bill fallings that the deadline for requesting bills is two days into our session May 16th if I’m reading that correctly. Is there a reason why that’s so immediate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Give me just a moment. I would imagine Representative Luke that is consistent with what's been done in years past we simply had this Adjournment Resolution was prepared by staff consist of what's been done, with what's been done in the past I will tell you and it’s specifically direct that I just ask him to do the Adjournment Resolution as it’s customer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I follow up, aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore I can tell you that it is not consistent with past sessions that we have always give members more time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just reminded of something that is easy to forget any member can request bills now between now and then. Again, I was just reminded that by Legal Council that this was actually drafted by Mr. Cohen to be consistent with prior Adjournment Resolutions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, if I may just ask… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thinking again, I can assure you Representative Moore that it’s not consistent the idea of two days if there are only two days to consider what legislation we wanna request with staff, I’m wondering whether you think about extending that by one week not necessarily not this moment but whether you would be consider doing that in… [0:04:59.8] [End of file…]

negotiations with the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll be glad if I can, if maybe we can [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, the gentleman is out of order at this time with two members up, but Representative Luebke, the Chair does not entertain any changes to the dates. The Chair would remind everybody that this is the third week of July, and every day between now and the time we adjourn is a day that any member can request a bill be filed. It will be put into a queue, and it will be read within the first two days. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to be recorded as voting yes on House Bill 74. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting aye on House Bill 74. Representative Carney, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to be recorded as voting aye on 74. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as voting aye on House Bill 74. Further discussion, further debate? Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My good friend Dr. Jones went and found the Adjournment Resolution from 2009, and I would point out that it was exactly consistent, that on that occasion the House reconvened on May the 12th of 2010, and that the deadline to get the requested bill drafting was May the 14th of 2010. So that was exactly two days after, just like this adjournment resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Joint Resolution 1023 on its third reading. Those in favor will say aye, those opposed will say no. The ayes have it, and House Joint Resolution 1023 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Senate Bill 515. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 515, a bill entitled an act to delay additional implementation of the Jordan Lake Rules and Jordan Lake Session Laws and provide for alternative implementation of the Protection of Existing Buffer Rules. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill will be temporarily displaced at the moment. The House will be at ease for one moment. Representative Luebke, the Chair also just wanted to remind the gentleman that another part of the rules that we adopted include the ability for any committee to introduce a bill after the deadline with the consent of the committee. So that is another vehicle in addition to the time between now and session. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that part of the rule as well. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to recess for about an hour and five minutes. I will recite what we'll be recessing

Object to it's the standard provisions that we've taken today or have taken so far today. We'll be back at six fifteen for the members for the members who objected to third reading on Senate bill three eighty. The chair if the members removed the objection wish to fully debate the bill the chair would be willing to entertain that if it doesn't look like we're...if it looks like we can adjourn earlier and not be here until midnight so that you all can consider and we can discuss after recess. It may very well be that we're gonna be here anyway 'cause we're waiting on a bill that I anticipate some debate but if not it's something to consider just for the purposes of getting the members out but providing the centing side on that bill a time to debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGES: Further notices and announcements? The House will be at ease I do believe we have a couple of committee announcements the members will remain in the Chamber momentarily. Ladies and gentlemen we're trying to get information regarding the status of certain messages we expect from the Senate. And what we're trying to do just to make optimum use of our time we're probably going to see about five minutes to see whether or not it will be worth while to take care of bills we don't anticipate lengthy debate before we recess because we also anticipate a rules meeting that will cause us to go into another recess so with your indulgence we're probably gon' need about five minutes to work that out. The Chair will provide and hour of our dinner break at the appropriate time here shortly. The House will be at ease. Representative Jackson please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES: Mister speaker would the Chair provide those of us on rule committee (laughs) an hour for dinner. SPEAKER CHANGES: The...actually that is what we're talking about trying to sort it out so that we're trying to be fair to the members. The House be at ease. SPEAKER CHANGES: The House will come back to order. Representative Moore is recognized to import the conference report the Cleric will read. SPEAKER CHANGES: To the price of the Senate the Speaker of the House of Representatives conferees point resolve the difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives on city bill three twelve one of the bills ?? redone on actual reimbursement by countys to ??

...is relaying the payment for medical services providing inmates in county jails to allow counties to utilize Medicaid for eligible prisoners. The Humphries recommend the, that the Senate and House of Representatives adopt their support. Humphries for the Senate. Senator Davis, Chair. Senators Newton and Goolsby. Humphries for the House of Representatives. Representative Burr, Chair. Representative Hager, Moore, and Saine. [LONG PAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, counter for immediate consideration. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Clerk agree. [LONG PAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives. Resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate three twenty-one. Humphries recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt the report. Humphries to the Senator. Senator Davis, Chair, Senator disputing Goolsby, Humphries to the House of Representative. Senator Burr, Representative Burr errs to Representative Hager, Moore, and Saine. [LONG PAUSE} [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House bid ease. The Clerk is updating the Dashboard. [LONG PAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and Gentlemen, it should be on your Dashboard. You may have to hit refresh. [LONG PAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To, for a motion and then to explain the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adopt the committee report for the Bill and I ask that I briefly explain it. Members, the first section of this Bil has to do with what counties, about the counties responsibility for medical cost when a person is arrested or in custody. This language is, is a result of a compromise that was reached this afternoon between the county commissioners and the hospitals. All the parties are in agreement with this language. It was agreed upon and takes care of all the concerns and that's a, that's an issue apparently that has been brewing for a few years. So, we're glad that we're able to get that resolved. The, the other section has the language with respect to the, filling the vacancy of the District Court Judges. We've debated that already. That's the one, this, this language is the House language that came, that [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, the Chair apologizes, but the Clerk tells me the, the conference report that is on the Dashboard is not the correct document, so we're going to have to bid ease for just another moment. [LONG PAUSE]

[0:00-2:08]: inaudible (recess) Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is the gentleman okay without the proper conference report? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is before you. Let me see if whether or not Representative Morris completed his comments, and I'll come back to you Representative Glazier. Representative Moore (??), was the gentleman completed with his comments? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We've debated that, I was going to say we included the amendment that Representative Glazier had supported on the 30 day provision. And the language about notary's public was scaled back significantly to have it just be as a report to the Secretary of State, and that was all met with approval of all the parties who had expressed a concern there. So, ?? the body's continued support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'll be very brief, but I support all the provisions in the bill except as we've continue to oppose, most of us on this side of the aisle, section 4, because it again takes away the authority of the bar. And, doesn't matter how many bar nominations the bar sends up, the governor now doesn't have to choose someone that the bar recommends, and makes the judicial vacancy appointment process totally a political one independent, in my view, of mayor (??), for the reasons I've set out before, and most folks on this side of the aisle have voted against that bill. I continue to oppose it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the conference. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to speak on the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And very briefly, I do want to again emphasize the fact that we're cutting out our local bars from this process. And if they don't feel that their decisions make a big difference, or make a difference, to be just sent up here, then we are disengaging them from the process. And I think it's something that we really need to think about. And I think all of you, at some point and time in your communities, have lawyers who have done fine service for your communities, and they will be left out of the process. They won't feel that their actions are meaningful because they want to at least be able to send one of the final three appointees on the list. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Berger, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know, again, we're debating a section that's the same as what it was when it left the House. But I do believe that this is a good section. You know, we have a duly elected governor who should not have his hands tied. And I'm sure the bar will and will still be able to, I know they'll be able to send recommendations, but this is simply giving him the flexibility, that if he's not comfortable with the names, that are sent to him..

. . . the duly elected governor of this state can make that decision on his own as to who should be appointed to District Court judge, and his hands won't be tied by a group of folks who are not elected by anyone in any of those judicial districts, and it gives him that opportunity. And I think this is a good bill. I think that's a good provision, and I think this is a good compromise. But could it simply ?? pass the provision that removes completely the judicial district of the bar association's input from this, but we did not. That was left so that they could continue to provide the governor with input and have that advisory-type role and not tie his hands. So I think it's a good compromise, and I would certainly encourage the members to support to conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Starnes ??, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized ?? the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, you know that the court system is so important in this state, and we're always searching for the most qualified judges that we can find. And I think the bar association has done a good job in the past of identifying qualified and good candidates, but we want to be able to make sure that the governor has the authority to pick the best person that can do it. Sometimes the best person may not be on the list that the bar association submits. So it just expands that list so that others can be considered. No one will be appointed to the bench who is not eminently qualified, and I urge you to support this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate on the motion? If not, the question before the House is the motion to adopt the conference report for Senate Bill 321. All in favor vote Aye. All opposed vote No. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES]The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Sixty-seven having voted in the affirmative, 43 in the negative, the conference report for Senate Bill 321 has been adopted. The Senate will be so notified. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to recess for an hour and a half. Let's call it until 7:15. The technical corrections bill will be prepared. We may have to provide a little bit more time for the staff to prepare the technical corrections bill. We're consulting with the Senate. We hope to have that done over the next 20 or so minutes. After that, the drafting process will require an hour or so, and then there will need to be a Rules meeting, so it may be that we come in simply so that we can notice the Rules meeting and go on to Rules. And I think right now that if we break for an hour and a half, it should give us enough time. If something should come up, check email or check with the clerk. If we think there's more time, we'll try and let you know so that you can use your time as productively as possible. Notices and announcements? Rep. Starnes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Republicans will caucus at 6:45 in Room 544. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep.Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clarity from Rep. Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rules ??, Rep. Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Rules is not scheduled to meet during this break, so you can have a good dinner. This is one of those times when the Rules committee members, we actually get to eat when everybody else does, so we'll meet after we've come back in session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore, you're getting better every day. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, ladies and gentlemen, the House will be in recess subject to ratification of bills and resolutions ??, receive the message from the Senate, receive the committee reports, conference reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees and modifications to the calendar. We will re-convene at 7:15 p.m. The House stands in recess. [GAVEL DOWN]