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 16, 2014 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The House will come to order. Members, please take your seats. Visitors please retire from the chamber. The Sargent at arms will close the doors. The prayer will be offered by a member of our Sargent at arms, Bill Morris. Members and visitors in the gallery, please stand and please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let us pray. Dear heavenly father, we thank you so much for this wonderful day you've give us today. We thank you for the members here that seek to serve you and the citizens of North Carolina. Lord, I pray that you will quiet their minds and humble their hearts as they go about your work, Lord, here in this place. Lord, we also lift up their families. Lord, we thank you for the sacrifice that they make having their loved ones here serving all of us. Be with them. Meet all their needs o' Lord. And Lord I pray that you'll just pour out a extra, extra measure of your grace into all of our hearts. Let us be ever mindful of your presence each and every day. And Lord, I ask that you go with us and guide us and direct us in all that we do. I pray all these things in Jesus Christ's name. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I pledge allegiance, to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the journal for Tuesday, July fifteen, 2014 has been examined and found to be correct, please approvals ready. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves that the journal for July fifteenth be approved as written. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials or papers addressing the general assembly of the House, ratification of bills and resolutions. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? ratify ?? to the Governor for Senate bill one o'five, enact all that established in the town of Mathews and Rollis poised and depdences state health plan for teachers and with following ability to ratify property enrollment per senate office secretary of state, House bill seven fourteen, enact to require residentees of every county. House bill eleven fifty-one, enact on the lines of more accountable board of education ?? real property.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Chapter bills be noted. Ladies and gentleman, the chair would like to extend a welcome and a thank you to the nurse of the day. The nurse of the day is Mary Schuller from Chapel Hill. Mary, thank you for being here and thank you for your service. [APPLAUSE] Ladies and gentlemen, the chair would be, is delighted to extend a courtesies of the gallery to Representative Ford's wife, Angela. Four of their five grand children; Ashton, Avory, Makenzie, and Hundson, and a friend who is joining them, Chamile Steadman. Please stand and let us welcome you. [APPLAUSE] Calendar Senate bill eight twelve. 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 House of Representatives on Senate bill eight twelve will be able to be entitled enact and exercise North Carolina's Constitutional authority to replace common core and establish, to promote and ensure high academic standards for that are robust and appropriate for North Carolina. The conferees recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives adopts he report. Conferees for the Senate; Senator Tillman chair, Senator Wade and Soucek. Conferees for the House... [end]

[Speaker changes.] ...representatives. Representative Holloway, Chair... Representative Brisson, Horn, ??????, and Elmore. [Speaker changes.] Representative Horn, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] To explain the bill. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. Ladies and gentleman, I move for concurrence to a... post conference committee substitute on Senate Bill 812, replace common core standards with North Carolina's higher academic standards. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. As you know, we worked long and hard on this particular bill...both the Senate and the House...this is a coming together of a commitment to exercise North Carolina's right and obligation to create and establish academic standards for our public schools. This conference report melds the two versions, I think, quite well. There are...I'll just point out a couple of things. One is that this bill does insist that North Carolina work towards achieving the highest academic standards in the country. That we are creating a commission of eleven members, that's a change from the House version, which was nine members. That we are not taking anything off the table from the standpoint of being able to access the best ideas in the country...to insure that we have high academic standards and that we took the privacy part out of...student privacy part out of the bill because that was covered very well in the bill that was signed into law very recently by the Governor...it came out of the Senate...Senator Barefoot's bill. Pretty much, that's it. We did add principals and superintendents to the list of those who should...or we suggest should participate in creating the new standards but it is very clear that we're not going backwards. It's very clear that the standards we presently have remain in effect so there is stability and promise and an exercise of North Carolina's right to cr...constitutional right to establish its own standards. I ask for your support. [Speaker changes.] Representative Cotham, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] To see if the gentleman will yield for a question. [Speaker changes.] Representative Horn, does the gentleman yield. [Speaker changes.] I yield. [Speaker changes.] Gentleman yields. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker and Representative Horn, just looking through the online version, I wanted to ask about the smarter balance consortium assessments. Will those assessments be allowed with this conference report. [Speaker changes.] We have taken nothing off the table. We don't prohibit the commission from looking at anything, wherever this state can see the best possible standards that works for this state...that's allowable. [Speaker changes.] Thank you. [Speaker changes.] To speak on the bill, Mister Speaker? [Speaker changes.] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members, as many of you know, I have been a part of this Common Core debate for over four and a half years when this idea was nationally brought about to all state legislatures. I was one of the ones, along with some of our Senators who are no longer here, to really work on this issue so I feel I have spent a lot of time, maybe too much time looking at this issue. I do think that it's really important that North Carolina has the best academic standards. I believe that the Common Core Standards are very good standards and very much standards that are focused on student achievement and really raising the bar for student performance and that should be what we all want. Sadly, this issue has been made extremely political in the last few years. And that is extremely unfortunate because we are talking about our children's education and their curriculum. We are talking about very complex issues and many people I have been concerned did not exactly understand. And so, although I'm glad to see some of the changes that were made...I think there are some good changes...I just get back to why are we really doing this?

and what is the real reason? Is this really to better education, or is this more political in nature? And I worry that this is more political, that this is against the federal government, that the Department of Education, and if we throw in President Obama's name, then goodness. So, I do think this is something that is not necessary. That it's a solution looking for a problem that really doesn't exist. A problem that we have created as the legislature, along with several other of our southern states. And so, for those reasons I will vote no today. I do think that the Common Core Standards, we've invested a lot of time, we have invested a lot of money, and I think this sends a bad signal to teachers, and to parents, and to students about what happens next. What about all of the professional development, what about all the training, what about all the supplemental instruction that goes, and is aligned with Common Core? Are those items now irrelevant? What does this say to our school system? And I think that it's not a fair burden to place on our schools and on our teachers right now. Especially with so much else that is going on. I asked the question about the assessment piece, because assessments are a big part of Common Core. There are different types of assessments. North Carolina has focused a lot on what we call 'summative' assessments that give just a final grade in the end. The Common Core, with the smarter balance consortium looks at more formative, summative, and benchmark assessments. Which I can tell you, as an educator myself and as a parent, that's what we want for our children. Those are the type of tests that will help children to actually grow and we can see where problems are. And so, unfortunately I am not going to be able to support this bill. I do encourage, and I appreciate the work that Representatives Horn and Holloway especially have made on this, but I do not believe this is a bill that we really need to focus on right now, and we should not politicize our curriculum. So, I'll be voting no. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. While I respect our colleague, Representative Cotham, I have to disagree with her. When we started this fight last year, and that's when it started as far as I'm concerned, because I wasn't here prior to that. When we started this fight, it did appear nationwide, or statewide, that this was a partisan issue. It appeared that way. Your folks in the schools system, your educators, they all said that this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. As long as they were in the public, as long as they were on the school grounds, as long as they were around other educators, other teachers, they were going to spew the DPI propaganda. But the minute we started getting them away from the school, and talking to them one-on-one, those same educators told us this was a terrible system. Those same educators, in many cases, admitted that they are teaching something they know nothing about. The entire Common Core program needs to be replaced. We need to replace it with North Carolina program. Even, possibly, not necessarily in here, I don't know the feeling of most of the Democrats in here, but I can tell you that statewide, this is not a partisan issue, because even the Democrat's children are coming home with Common Core homework. Everybody's children are coming home with this stuff, and people are getting angry on both sides of the aisle. This should be a matter of concern for everybody in North Carolina. We're losing a lot of our rights, day to day. We've got an issue on the ballot in November about another right that we could end up giving away. And to give away the sovereignty of our educational system, is something we don't need to do. Now, if this was a good program it would be a little harder to stand up here and say we need to do away with it. But the evidence is in. We had our study committee, so that we could educate ourselves on it, we talked to people. We had people coming in from all areas of the educational system, we had people coming in from all walks of life that were familiar with the Common Core. And the bottom line is, it's a terrible system

There may be some good things about it and though this bill will allow them to use those things if they need to. Taking it out of the common core system. There's just too many problems inherent in common core. It's something we never should have accepted. The upside to this bill is we are not going to beat up our educators and beat up our students, changing to another system the way we did when this one was implemented. It was implemented all at once and they were expected from day one to change to a whole new program, a whole new way of teaching. This program in many quarters of the country is a laughing stock. We need to get rid of it. We need your support. Again, it's not a partisan issue. It appeared to start out that way, but your kids are taking or your grand kids are taking this and if you haven't done any time, spent any time to look at this program and see what it really is, then please vote to get rid of it because it is a terrible system and there are many states now moving towards doing the same thing that we did, the same thing that Indianapolis did and same thing that several other states are doing and that is stepping away from this program. And if you remember correctly, this program was accepted before it was even completed. This, DPI had no idea what they were getting into when they accepted the program because it wasn't complete yet. I ask for your support in getting rid of this program. Please vote yes on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose dose the gentleman from Stokes, Representative Holloway, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just want to take just a moment to just address some of the comments about his being politicized. I think President Obama was referenced and, you know, if I look back at the history of common core and how it came about, if I'm not mistaken, it came about from the Governor's association. And I believe that Governor Jeb Bush, was actually in charge of that association when it came about. So, I don't know that this is clearly just politicized. I clearly heard from parents, I heard from teachers, particularly in the subject of math. That math was being taught just completely different in the schools. Just adding and subtracting numbers was almost banished with common core an it became more just word problems. And, I heard a lot of concern from teachers. I heard a lot of concern from parents and students. This bill, again, the state board is going to have a review next year. They were gonna make changes next year whether we did anything or not. But, I bet you recall getting a lot of emails blaming you or fussing at you to keep common core, do away with common core. Well, we don't really have any say in it. We never have. The state board, it's their purview and we leave it under their purview, but we create a commission and we put our voice in it. We ask them to replace it and we have a board to keep us in tune to what's going on. But, Mr. Speaker, we've debated this issue, we've already went through this several times on the floor and I'd like to make a motion please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Stokes, having move the previous question. The question before the House is the motion for the adoption of the previous question. So many favoring the motion for previous question will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Sixty-two having voted in the affirmative and forty-two in the negative. The motion for previous question adopted per senate to the rules. The minority leader and majority leader are each permitted three minutes of time to debate the motion to adopt the conference report. Representative Hall, does the gentleman wish to use the three minutes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll not be usin those three minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Majority leader waves, excuse me, Minority leader waves. Does the majority leader wish to use the three minutes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may speak up to three minutes to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I think what we have in front of us today is a victory for the people of North Carolina. I think this is a situation that shows that democracy works. Yes, several years ago, common core became a part of the curriculum in the state of North Carolina. It was told to us that it would be something that would improve the curriculum and help the students to learn. But, after it became implemented, it became clear that there were some flaws in the program. [end]

And so where did the effort to change common core begin? It didn't come from the DPI. It didn't come from the teachers and the administrators. It came from the parents. The parents began to express to us as legislators that they had some concerns with common core and the way that their children are learning or not being able to learn under this new curriculum. And I think that what we did as legislators was listen to the parents. The people who are out there trying to help their students do their homework every night. And what we have done is respond to the concerns of the parents of this state who want the best for their children. I think that we need to reassess a lot of programs as time goes by, to see, is it doing what we intended it to do. I think that with this change to the common core, it will put in place a new higher standard, a North Carolina standard, for our students in North Carolina, is going to enable our students to learn in a way that will help them be successful in life. I think it's a good deal. I think it's a reasonable compromise and I urge every member to vote yes. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the adoption of the conference report for Senate bill eight twelve. Submitting favoring of the adoption of the conference report will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the votes. Seventy-one having voted in the affirmative and thirty-four in the negative, the conference report is adopted. Will be enrolled. Strike that. Senate will be so notified. Representative Hastings is recognized to send forth a conference report. 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 ten forty eighty, bills been titled enact to amend the selection criteria for adjutant general of the North Carolina National Guard to have assisted the adjutant general for the North Carolina National Guard and to allow for additional uses of family assistance center funds for surviving family members of diseased National Guard service members. The conferees recommend that the Senate and House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate; Senator Rabin chair, Senator Soucek, Sanderson, Meredith, and Jenkins. Conferees for the House of Representatives; Representative Hastings chair, Representative Szoka and Floyd [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar and members, the chair conferred with the House minority leader also on this. It would require a suspension of the rules to add the bill to today's calendar, but that request has been made. Is there objection to the bill adding, being added to today's calendar? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. Representative Luebke, I was, I, we conferred with your minority leader prior to doing so, there was no objections stated. That's going to be on two bills that we're adding, this one and another one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. Just checking. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He's doing his job back there. Hear no objection, the bill will be added for today's calendar. Representative Cleveland is recognized to send forth a conference report. The clerk will, do you all have it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, conferees appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on Senate bill six fourteen, bills and entitlement act to further protect military lands to make amendments to the military affairs commission and to protect sensitive military documents. The conferees appoint, rec, the conferees recommend that the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate; Senator Brown chair, Senator Pate, Rabin, and Clark. Conferees for the House of Representatives; Representative Cleveland chair, Representative Whitmire and Bell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, this bill calendar and also will be added for today's calendar for immediate consideration without objection. Again, this was conferred with the minority leader. Hear no objection, it will be added for today's calendar for consideration for today also. House bill six forty-four. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate committee substitute for House bill six forty-four, a bill has been inclined to act relating to the handling of anti-neoplastic agents to prevent disease and injury cause by exposure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Murray rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Make a motion, we concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has made a motion to concur. Does the gentleman wish to debate the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Dr. Fulgim has been working on this bill. This bill passed the House unanimously. [end]

And the changes that are made by the Senate are, were very minor. And just as refresh everybody's recollection, this bill helps to control hazardous drug exposure for individuals working in hospitals with anti-neoplastic therapy, such as chemo, chemotherapy. And, the department of labor has the authority under the occupational safety health act to enforce federal regulations on this. This would give the commissioner of labor the authority to promulgate additional rules in consultation with interested parties, such as hospitals and other folks that deal with anti-neoplastic chemotherapeutic agents. I would that you support the legislation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? Further debate? If not the question before the House is the motion to concur with the Senate committee substitute for House bill six forty-four. So many favoring adoption of the motion will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and four having voted in the affirmative and one in the negative. The motion to concur is adopted. This bill will be enrolled and sent to governor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker. Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Wake wish to be recorded as a yes on that vote? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as having voted aye. House bill ten forty-eight, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the present sense, Speaker of the House of Representative constitutes points of law difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House bill ten forty-eight, the government dollar act, been selected criteria for the add ?? general. The conference recommends the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report conference of the Senate. Senator Rabin chair and Soucek, Sanderson and Jenkins conference of the House of Representatives. Representative Hasting chair, Representative Soucek and Floyd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hastings, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Just to move for adoption of the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has properly made his motion. The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No reason to debate other than to say this has been fully voted through an LRC committee and through the Senate and the House and would appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Grier Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Representative Hasting exacerbate, this is one of those bills that's gotten a great bedding but it's been the subject of some controversy as it's gone through the process. As the bill stands now, there are many good things in it, but there's also some things that I believe still tie the hands of our Governor too much when he goes to select our next Adjutant general. And right now the Governor has, under current law, the Governor has considerable flexibility. If we, if this bill passes however, the Governor would have his hands tied in several ways, some of which are good. You'll see, I think, Representative Whitmire might talk some about it also, it would require the Governor to consider federal recognition. Representative Whitmire knows more about that than I do. That's a good thing. Overall North Carolina has been blessed with good adjutants general. We've had a great National Guard that has had next to no internal problems. Other states have not been so lucky. So, should North Carolina ever have a misfortune of ever having some internal problems, I want to make sure our Governor can reach outside the state, if necessary, or to reach into folks with more active component experience, to come in and help solve any problems that might arise. I don't think that's going to be necessary, but I want the Governor to be able to break that glass in case of some emergency that pops up. This report in front of you, if it passes, would restrict the Governor's ability to do that and limit it to too narrow a pull of adjutant generals. I can say, this is one of those things that as we've gone through the process, it's been a completely nonpartisan issue. There's been proponents and opponents of both parties on this and so it's been a nonpartisan delight to work both with and against you all on this. In the end though, I'd urge you to vote no on this motion so the conferees can go back to work. i think there's some issues that could be resolved in a very, very prompt manner, come back to use with a conference report that we can all vote on. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the bill, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Folks as you all know, I work considerable a whole lot in my role as a north com liaison for emergency response with our National Guard. I, going back to November, reached out to the National Guard bureau and many... [end]

Any stakeholders to get the facts and simply put representative Martin has spoken very much what I was going to speak, but to bullet down and to try and get away from the military language that sometimes you may not necessarily understand. Limiting the eligibility pool to the extent that the Senate's version does this I think is extremely poor policy for many reason and here's a couple of them. Currently, and again, we have an outstanding national guard and I want to keep it that way. We have an eligibility pool for when - and I hope that's a long ways in the future, that we're needing the governor needs to select another adjutant general, between 30 and 35 people. But if we go back to 1986 what seems like an eternity ago, Goldwater nickels items that put the military into a joint context, elements of that are still being implemented. One of which is general officer criteria, and the guard reserve always pretty much follows the active component. The active component has had the particular criteria for general officer selection and federal recognition in place since 2008, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. and if we're not in session and that's implemented, when that time comes, that eligibility pool of 30 to 35 will be shrunk to zero to two maybe three people to pick from. That makes this poor policy. Well, okay, if you want to gamble with that vote to concur. it needs to go back to conference and people to actually look at this page of facts as to why it's not good. and with that I do ask you to vote red to non-concur, and I'll add a couple more things. This language as written will preclude some of our state's most likely eligible qualified folks because if someone has been chopped to another entity in the military outside the state as a guardsman at let's say NORTHCOM, a joint force headquarters command, and took a follow on to another joint force headquarters, that's the breadth and scope of experience that the adjutant general needs. Well they would not have been here through the last six years. There's many problems with this bill. The intent of it was good, to put rigor and federal recognition into the adjutant general criteria. But the way it is, the 99% of good in this bill is absolutely trumped by what you have heard. You'll hear some positives in the bill, there certainly are. We need to conference those reasons and get those who literally trumped what we voted for unanimously a few weeks ago, that went through our full committee process. we need not let just a handful of votes veto the entire House's unanimous vote from a few weeks ago. Thank you, I ask you to vote red. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of parliamentary inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker this is a conference committee report, if we defeat it does that not mean this bill is just dead? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, representative Brawley if we fail to concur we are still in the state of not concurring so we could reappoint the [??] to negotiate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Szoka please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, like my compatriot over here I also have - I'm a retired military officer, active component, I think you all know that. Throughout my career I had many opportunities to work with many different national guard units, Hawaiian National Guard, Iowa, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and North Carolina. In none of those cases where I was never in a supervisory position, I was always in an advisory position or in training position. Representative Whitmire has said that 99% of this bill is good, I think 100% of the bill is good. The one issue with this bill that is at contentious with a minority of the people who are on the conference committee is that the bill requires the next adjutant general or the national guard of our state militia to be selected from our national guard. There's a difference of opinion on this. I think that that is the right and proper policy, I don't see it as tying the governor's hands, I don't see it as limiting his ability to pick someone who is fully qualified to lead our state's national guard. There are others who would like to see this opened up to other components of the armed services. Someone who, like myself maybe, who had been retired from active service.

Could meet that criteria. Others who are reserve officers, another major component of armed forces could meet the criteria if this were not in there. Thirty-four of the other states in this great union have a similar legislation to this where it's mandated that the adjutant general is picked from within the national guard. Our national guard today is a highly professional, highly capable force. If you go back to the seventies perhaps and the eighties, back before the volunteer army. I will tell you that I served in the late seventies and there were problems in the guard and there were a whole lot of problems in the active component and there were problems in the reserve. Immediately following Vietnam our military had huge immense problems, all the components of armed services. To fix those problems, fix the systemic issues within them, and I have full faith and confidence in our national guard today and in the other components. And I have full faith and confidence that in our current governor or any future governor will find many qualified candidates to select to be the next adjutant general whenever that occurs. I respectfully ask you to support this and vote yes on the adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Robert Brawley please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speak on concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentleman. For 24 years I served in the North Carolina National Guard. Yes my name was combat Bob, I was well known across the state because when I took over as commander I did some things that had never been done in a guard before. I was also as commander of the aviation section the only person in the section with no combat experience. This bill potentially restricts us, the North Carolina national Guard, to the point that if we were going into combat we could be tying the governor's hands so that he has to have a commander with no combat experience. I think we need to vote this bill down, work on concurrence so that the governors done a good job. Twenty-four years experience, I've seen a lot going on in the North Carolina National Guard. We've had some good commanders, but if we're going into combat we need the governor to be able to have somebody that's been there, knows what they're doing and can lead with authority. I urge you to vote no on concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members, unless the response or the motion chooses otherwise it's the intent of the chair to let representative Hastings speak last on this. Any members wishing to speak on the motion please do so, we have three on. Representative Floyd please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the conference [??]. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker when we first looked at this, and being an ex-military person, sometimes when you go outside the system to bring someone in it creates chaos within the system. This is what we are trying to do here, not trying to tie the governors hands, it's just look at the motivation within the national guard so that person can believe that there's an opportunity for him or her to rise to the highest level. So I'm asking that we vote green on this. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stam please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I have - my limited military experience was as a private and a corporal. We've had three of our people who have served us in high ranking officers and I think they probably know better than I how we should vote on this. I would like to hear from representative Larry Hall, Larry you were a major in the marine corp. Representative Blust, weren't you an officer of some kind in the army? I know you had a lot of shell shock, and maybe there's some others that I - sorry, sorry. I'm not expressing an opinion, I would just like to hear the opinion of those who have served as officers in the military on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Cleveland please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] When this bill left the House, the governor the way it was written had a large pool to draw from if he needed to. I could not envision any...

Governor of any state going out of his integral national guard to select a commander, unless there was a problem. And conceivably there could be a problem. We should not restrict a governor to having a 25 or 32, 30, whatever it is, eligibility pool within the national guard and keep him from selecting the best person to lead us. Another thing this conference committee reported was instead of having one assistant adjutant general, they want to have two. I'm not sure why, I wasn't on the conference committee, but that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. You have a division commander, you have an assistant division commander. You don't have a division commander with two assistants. So there's other problems with the bill outside of the pool. And why the portion was added for spouses and children, where did that come from? Someone's special favor to somebody? I have no idea. It wasn't in the bill when it went to the Senate, and it miraculously appeared. Why should I think this? This always happens. But seriously, I do not think we do the state of North Carolina a service if we restrict the governor from being able to select the best person to lead our national guard. I vote no please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Soka [SP] please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask representative Cleveland if he would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland are you aware that the active duty divisions do in fact have two assistant division commanders, one for support, one for maneuver? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry Mr. Speaker I did not understand the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can the gentleman please restate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. Are you aware that active duty divisions do have two assistant division commanders of equal rank, one for support and one for maneuver. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wasn't aware that the army needed two assistant division commanders for the divisions, the marine corp doesn't. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman that was an exchange. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for your blessed and enlightened answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That was an exchange between an army officer and a marine corp master gunnery sargent. Representative [??] Meyer please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the bill a second time please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Three quick points. I without any reservation whatsoever 99.9% of the time the adjutant general should come from the ranking file of the state national guard, period, dot. It's having that opportunity if and when you had a situation where good order and discipline had decayed for various reasons and there's many, I've seen it in other states, history certainly proves this true. To where if a governor whoever he or she may be at the time had to go outside of the organization to put the train back on the tracks, the version we passed in the House that could be conferenced into this addresses that and fixes it very simply. Number two, as a citizen soldier, citizen [??] air man, whether you're guard, reserve or what have you, the Senate's language only requires the adjutant general to have had only three years. Now granted they may have a lot more than they really should be. When you're serving two masters, your civilian employer, whether it's yourself or someone else and a military commander, you really need to have someone who's walked in those moccasins more than just a touch and go, to be that particular leadership peace of knowing their people. Number three, the two pieces that were added to this after it left the House, again by unanimous vote, the addition of another assistant adjutant general, in my opinion that's technical in nature, it's federally funded by and large, don't miss the forest for the trees for that. It's in the budget to the best of my knowledge and I've got the paragraph unless it's fallen out. And the family support centers we can put that elsewhere, but the reason for this bill was to put rigor into the selection of the adjutant general that is valid, but again, it's fouled up to the point right now that I ask you to vote red. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other members wishing to speak before the chair recognizes the maker of the motion?

Representative Hastings is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker. One thing Id like to do is remind this body that this is not my bill. This bill emanated from the men and women of North Carolina who are in the North Carolina National Guard. TheyÕre not members of the Army Reserve, theyÕre not members of the Air Force Reserve. They donÕt have an ulterior motive of being the adjutant general. They simply understood that for our state to move forward, we needed to improve the process so we have federal recognition. And so that we have the ?? of having a North Carolina member of the National Guard serve as the adjutant general. No ulterior or partisan or political motive. One other thing I would like for you to remember is there is a requirement in this that makes this person who becomes the adjutant general a North Carolina resident. A person who lives in North Carolina, not someone from another state. And then finally just to close, after reminding you again that this emanated from the men and women of North Carolina in the National Guard, not the military but the North Carolina National Guard, which is under a separate title of the United State code. It is not a military unit. And finally, I just wanted to remind the people of this body about the provision where the funds appropriated would be for family assistance centers for expenses related to support of surviving family members of deceased members of the North Carolina National Guard. And I would appreciate your support on the adoption. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the adoption of the conference report, the motion made by Representative Hastings, for House Bill 1048. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 40 having voted in the affirmative and 66 in the negative, the motion fails. The Senate will be so notified. Senate Bill 614. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, conferees appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on Senate Bill 614, a bill to be entitled an act to further protect military lands, to make amendments to the military affairs commission, and to protect sensitive military documents. Conferees recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate: Senator Brown, chair. Senators Pate, Rabin and Clarke. Conferees for the House of Representatives: Representative Cleveland, chair. Representatives Whitmire and Bell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move to accept the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The only major difference in this conference report from what we sent to the Senate was the portion to protect the ?? information that the state generates through the process of making sure that our bases are protected. That information will not be made public until after the federal government makes its decisions on what theyÕre going to do in the next ?? process. IÕd appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Despite all the debate on the last bill, this is a good one. And please vote in favor of the motion. [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 614. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 106 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Senate Bill 614 conference report has been adopted. The bill will be enrolled. The bill will be sent back to the Senate. The Senate will be so notified, sorry.

Speaker: Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, at this time, the reason we added the items to the calendar today was to leave out the possibility that we will not have a vote session tomorrow. It appears as though that will be the case. So we will, when we adjourn, we will be adjourning for a 9 AM meeting tomorrow. I'm sorry, a session tomorrow but there will be no votes. There is however a possibility that we could have a session on Friday. Not likely but possible. So I hope that you will plan accordingly. Notices and Announcements; Representative Pierce please state your purpose. Pierce: Just a query of the chair. Announcer: The gentleman may state his inquiry. Pierce: Mr. Speaker, in case that comes to pass on Friday, many of us are prepared to share with Senator Palman?? in the funeral of her husband on Friday at 2 o'clock in Winston Salem, so I hope you, whatever emphasis you would have to make, I would hope that you would give us that privilege. Speaker: Thank you for making that point Representative Pierce. We will certainly make that accommodation. Ladies and gentlemen, since the motion to concur failed on House Bill 1048, the prior conference, conferees will be reappointed. Hastings, Chair Whitmire, Susan?? Floyd, the Senate will be so notified. Further notices and announcements: Representative Ford, please state your purpose. Ford: Pulling a personal privilege. Speaker: A gentleman has been recognized for a point of personal privilege. Ford: I'd like to invite everyone to Farmers' Day in China Grove this Saturday. It starts at 9 AM, It's the 32nd annual Farmers' day and there's antique farmer's equipment. There's a 'mater' contest as I call it. I just wish I was one of the judges, because, you gotta , you gotta put Duke's mayonnaise on both slices of bread. Not just one, both; salt and pepper and a good tomato. And, it's gonna be a lotta fun. Little Miss Farmers' Day and Mr. Farmer's Day look, the children. It's hilarious. Tons of barbeque and chilled wine so come on out to China Grove Farmer's Day, all day, this Saturday. Of course, it's China Grove, North Carolina. I would say we're near Charlotte, but we don't like to talk about Charlotte. But anyway, come to China Grove. See ya. Speaker: Gentleman's out of order. [Laughter] Further Notices and Announcements: Representative Moore is recognized. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourns subject to ratification of bills, messages from the Senate, Committee reports, Conference reports, Will referral resolutions, appointment of conferees, introduction of bills and resolutions and modifications encountered, to reconvene on Thursday, July 17th, 2014 at 9 AM. Speaker: Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Hastings that the House is now adjourned. Subject to ratification of bills and resolutions, receipt of messages from the Senate, Committee reports, Conference reports, Will referrals of bills and resolutions, appointments of conferees and modifications to the calendar, to reconvene on the July 17th, at 9 AM. All in favor of the vote, all in favor say "aye". [Aye] {Collectively} Speaker: All opposed, vote "no"... The "ayes" have it. The House stands adjourned.