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

searching for


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

House | June 5, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

Prayer will be offered by Representative Carla Cunningham. Members and visitors in the gallery, please stand, and please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please bow your heads and let us pray. L-rd I pray for our president, our military and the citizens of North Carolina. And all persons under the sound of my voice. I pray for peace all over this world. I pray for the sick, poor and those who are suffering in our society. L-rd I pray, we depend on your knowledge, wisdom and the courage to do what is right. I pray we reject those who pressure us to violate our conscience. And then L-rd I ask that we would be ready to sacrifice our personal ambitions and political careers for the sake of our state. I implore thee to restore dignity, honor, trustworthiness and righteousness to the office we hold. I pray we remember to be good examples in our ??, conduct to fathers, mothers, sons and daughters of our state and nation. Additionally L-rd I ask you to remind us on a daily basis we are accountable to you for the decisions we make in this chamber. L-rd we bow our heads to receive truth. Let us open our ears to receive your counsel. Let use open our hearts to receive your eternal wisdom so we can see clearly and our decisions are flooded with light, truth and justice. This is my prayer, amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I pledge allegiance to flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under G_d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker the journal for Tuesday June the fourth 2013 has been examined, and found to be correct. I move its approval as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves that the journal for June fourth be approved as written. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The ayes have it. The journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials, ??, addressed to the General Assembly of The House, ratification of bills and resolutions The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Enrolling Clerk ?? Senate Bill 129, An Act To ?? Debt ?? State Capital Facilities Finance Act. Senate Bill 210 An Act ?? Chief Magistrate. Senate Bill 252 An Act To Increase ?? Certain Violations Of The Controlled Substances Act. Senate Bill 279 An Act To Update, Clarify Provisions Laws Governing States. House Bill 32 An Act To Increase The Amount Of Years Allowance For A Surviving Spouse. House Bill 114 An Act To No Longer Require ?? Or Judgement For ?? Containing Social Security Number Of A Party. House Bill 142 An Act To Provide Public Access To Certain Information, Maintaining Police, Campus Police Agencies Affiliated With Private Nonprofit Institutions. House Bill 301 An Act To Make Clarifying Changes To Laws, Regulate Engineers And Land Surveyors. House Bill 368 An Act To Provide Representation ?? Interest In The Board Of Agriculture. House Bill 383 An Act To Amend Grain ?? Licensing Amount, Increase The Bonding Amount. House Bill 410 An Act To Allow Division Of Motor Vehicles ?? Certificate Of Title ?? have the Certificate Of Title. House Bill 532 An Act To Make It A Crime To Operate An Ambulance, EMS Vehicle, Crime Fighting Vehicle, Or Law Enforcement Vehicle Upon A Highway, Street Or Public Vehicular Area Within The State While Consuming Alcohol. House Bill 687 An Act To Require Billing Code Council To Amend The North Carolina Billing Code. House Bill 710 An Act To Permit Water Utilities To Adjust Rates. House Bill 788 An Act To Amend Statutes Governing Power, Water And Sewage ??. House Bill 813 An Act To Make The Manufacture, Possession, Sale, Use And Delivery Of All Synthetic And Hemp Cannabinoids ??, Unlawful. House Bill 903 An Act To Require All ?? University Of North Carolina Fully Adhere To ?? Of Articulation Agreement. House, and the following bills due to ratify, properly enroll and present to the office of Secretary of State. Senate Bill 258, An Act To ?? The City Of ??. House Bill 252 ?? An Act To Provide Funding To ?? Street, Sidewalk Improvements City Of ??. House Bill 517 An Act To Regulate ?? With Artificial Lights In Rockingham County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of The House, without objection, rule 12D is suspended. Is there objection? So ordered.

Representative Murray is recognized to send forth Committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray for Commerce and Job Development Committee Report. Senate Bill 76, Domestic Energy Jobs Act, favorable. As House Committee substitute, unfavorable. Senate Committee substitute #2 and serially referred to Environment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The serial referral to Finance is stricken. The House Committee substitute will be referred to the Committee on Environment. Senate Committee substitute #2, unfavorable calendar. Representative Jordan, Representative McGrady are recognized to send forth Committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan and McGrady Judiciary Subcommittee B, Senate Bill 584 Amend False Liens Log, favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 630, Evidence of DNA Expungtion Laws, favorable as House Committee substitute, unfavorable as to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee substitute calendar original bill unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 124, Shoot Gun Inside to Incite Fear, favorable as House Committee substitute, unfavorable is the Senate Committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee substitute calendar, Senate Committee substitute unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 321, Contain the County's Inmate Medical Costs, favorable as the House Committee substitute, unfavorable as the Senate Committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee substitute calendar, Senate Committee substitute unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 443, Amend and Amend Firearms Law, favorable as House Committee substitute, unfavorable as the Senate Committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee substitute calendar, Senate Commitee substitute unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt is recognized to send forth Committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt for the Regulatory Reform Committee. Senate Bill 468, In Line Inspections Install Licensing is favorable to the House Committee substitute, unfavorable is the Senate Committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee substitute calendar, Senate Committee substitute unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Lewis and Setzer are recognized to send forth Committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Lewis and Setzer for the Finance Committee, House Bill 558, Soil and Water Districts Refunds, favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 816, Tobacco Growers Assessment Act. Favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 268, Sunset Beach Canal Dredging Maintenance Fee. Favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 568, Asheville Deannexation. Favorable and serially referred to Government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill will be re-referred to the Committee on Government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Sarah Stevens is recognized to send forth Committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens for the Judiciary Subcommittee B reassignment of bill to full committee House Bill 809, Game Nights Non-Profit Fundraisers. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. Ladies and gentleman of the House, by motion of the member from Wilson County, Representative Martin, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Carly and Bailey Gillespie, friends and constituents from Wilson County. Please stand and let us welcome you. Calendar House Bill 591. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 591, a bill to ?? to satisfy the term of office for appointed members of the North Carolina Longitudinal Data System Board to make the State Information Officer chair of the North Carolina Longitudinal Data System Board and to specify the times for meeting of the North Carolina Longitudinal Data System Board and to require quarterly reporting on progress on the North Carolina Longitudinal Data System. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Clerk will read the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Daniel moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 29, by rewriting the date May 31 as September 30, 2013. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess the motion would be to concur in the amendment of the Senate. This is just to fix the date because it took us a little longer to get this passed than we had hoped and so we are trying to delay the implementation date accordingly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not

Question before the house is the motion by Representative Blackwell to concur the amendment number 1 to house bill 591. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 109 having voted in affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Ladies and gentleman, the house ?? to try and adjourn is closed to 4 pm as possible. Without objection the chair would like to use discretion to move through the calendar on bills we think we can dispose relatively quickly. Senate bill 200, the ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute for senate bill 200, the bill entitled as an act to extend time for local forensic science labs to obtain creditation.General ?? of North Carolina in action. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the members of the house, we have to pass this bill. Because if we don't, the local forensic labs, their results won't be admissible after July 1. And that is sure of a disaster. Criminals would have free reigns.The big issue was to what date the extension would go, the senate bill said 20-18 and judiciary bill says lets make that 20-15. On the theory that if you give any governing body like five years to do something, they are not gonna do it until the year before. So this will help the sheriffs and the local crime labs to convince their country commissioners to spend a little money to get their labs up to date. Our urge is to support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions, further debate. If not, the question before the house is to pass to house committee substitute to senate bill 200 on it's second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will record the vote. All members please record. Representative Stam. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 114 having voted affirmative, none in the negative. The house committee substitute to senate bill 200 is passed in second reading and without objection would be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General assembly of North Carolina in act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is to pass to house committee substitute to senate bill 200 on it's third reading. All in favor say Aye. All opposed say No. The Ayes have it. The house committee substitute to senate bill 200 has passed it's third reading and would be returned to the senate. Senate joint resolution 431 ?? ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate joint resolution 431 at joint resolution cofirmed it. Governor McCrory to ?? grace to office of Commissioner Banks. The senate resolves the house concurring. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman, the bill has been read and the representative Samuels is carrying the bill out of the chamber. We'll temporarily displace it. Senate bill 452 the ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute for senate bill 452. Bill being entitled an act to increase the jurisdictional amounts in the general court of justice to make arbitration mandatory in certain civil cases and to provide guidance to the court for the assessment of court cause and attorney fees and ?? claims matter when there arbitrates are ?? in favor of the ?? is affirmed on the bill. General assembly of North Carolina in act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask for an amendment first. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment.

?? 1108 have been in the board and 5 enroll and 3 in the substitute including the senate committee results too to have 664. 663 before we enroll since the governer was a special messenger. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As before 33 the corcury [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the person says the speaker had the presents the definitions 33 to support the activities of the act forces and to maintain governed by recatle appeling the structures located in various areas thats around spectaluations in the countries in the senate is the part they support is the countries in the senate is what they support and countries for the senate and Harry Brown,Anderson, mary, Bill Cook,?? representatives John R. Bell, IV,representative Marilyn Avila, Jason Saine andMichael Speciale. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Present the john the formation[SPEAKER CHANGES] .information.james is right now with the information[SPEAKER CHANGES] .i like to have the way they had , the changes they made to 433 i request the terrtary with the northern curve with this, when we came over. We did the things along with the take over,request in it. Really We have a good deal for that.thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion,further debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I request before the hours the option tohas that 433.our favourite all of us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I may space the code program to explain. One and and the report one and i got conference 433 has peneted the object the scenario has been over. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The pages come to the dias and the dias says that momentarily. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Voluntarily.speak[SPEAKER CHANGES] .i miss volunantegon 433. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I request vaerhorn. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I had the pages resembling and the provisions in occurance and the 662 countries could be same essential could be honested in god men to be ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please say your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr speaker.i would like to change on. I on 66 code. The way you change on 664. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May i ask you, you from cavin. Austin M. Allran, Tom Apodaca, Tamara Barringer, Stan Bingham, Dan Blue, Andrew C. Brock,Warren Daniel,Harry Brown Peter S. Brunstetter Angela R. Bryant Ben Clark Daniel G. Clodfelter Bill Cook David L. Curtis Warren Daniel Don Davis Jim Davis Joel D. M. Ford Valerie P. Foushee Thom Goolsby Malcolm Graham Rick Gunn Kathy Harrington Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr. Ralph Hise Neal Hunt Jeff Jackson Brent Jackson Clark Jenkins Ed Jones Eleanor Kinnaird Joyce Krawiec Floyd B. McKissick, Jr. Gene McLaurin Wesley Meredith Martin L. Nesbitt, Jr. E. S. (Buck) Newton Earline W. Parmon Louis Pate Ronald J. Rabin Bill Rabon Shirley B. Randleman Gladys A. Robinson Bob Rucho Norman W. Sanderson Dan Soucek Josh Stein Jeff Tarte Jerry W. Tillman Tommy Tucker Terry Van Duyn Trudy Wade Michael P. Walters Mike Woodard [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pages welcome.we appreciate you all sir and spend a week with the serial.i had a course with the weeken and an opportunity to better understand thing about what we do here and i carry that experience back to you.well. thing my friends and another incident iwant to consider here that and the members present here give a cooperative work.

Speaker1: Currently is not in session. The LEC has 20, business states to determine whether to commence a preliminary hearing. Number four: it allows the LEC to stand the preliminary investigation if it does not have enough information to dismiss or find probable cause. Number five, it postpones notification to the complainant of the charges against the legislator until the legislator has had the opportunity to respond to the charges and LEC has had the opportunity to consider the response; and since then finally it specifies that the LEC may issue a [xx ]admonishment without holding a hearing, this is partly implied but not specified and basically that’s what the bill does and now I stand to answer any questions. I would ask for your support on the bill. Speaker changes: Further discussion, further debate; If not the question before the House is to pass to the House committee substitute the senate bill 156 on its second reading, All of those who favor vote aye, all those who oppose vote no; the clerk will open the vote .[pause]The clerk will let the machine record the vote. One hundred and fifteen having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the House committee substitute for bill 156 is passed the second reading without objection; to be read a third time. Speaker changes: xxx North Carolina Act. Speaker changes: Further discussion, further debate; if not, the question before the House is to pass to the House committee substitute senate bill 156 on its third reading; all in favor say aye, all who oppose say no. The ayes have it. The House committee substitute senate bill 156 has passed the third reading, to be returned to the Senate. Senate bill 411 for xx reading. Speaker changes: The substitute committee present a bill 411 to violate transportation bye law committees and all planning organizations, all rural transportation planning organizations,all subject to standard ethics, of provisions. Speaker changes: All in North Carolina Act. Speaker changes: Representative xx please state your purpose. Speaker changes: To debate the bill. Speaker changes: The lady is xx to debate the bill. Speaker changes: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the House, this is another clean- up bill. The bill would basically remove the application of the State Government Ethics Act to PMOs and RPOs, and for your benefit xxx metropolitan planning organizations and rural transportation planning organizations. And with substitute ethic requirements are pertinent to the function of those two organizations. All members with voting authority are xxx in the MPO and the RPO will need to do the following and there’s five things. Not to mention any acts if the member knows or the member’s or member’s extended family or business with which the member is associated may incur a reasonable foreseeable financial benefit that would impair the member’s independence of judgment or from which he could reasonably be inferred that the financial benefit will influence the member’s actions. Number two: Promptly disclose in writing any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest . Number three: File a statement of economic interest with the State Ethics Commission that will be evaluated for possible conflicts and potential conflicts. Number four: follow it up with State Ethics Commission a list of all real estate and fully owned by the member and the member’s extended family or business with which the member is xxx located in the jurisdiction of that particular MPO or RPO in which the member is currently serving. And last not least: to disclose public or nonpublic information gained in serving the MPO/RPO that would affect a personal financial interest. The violations with the conflict of interest will be a class1, misdemeanor, may I know by concealing information on the SEC or real estate disclosure would also be a class 1 , misdemeanor, providing false information on those two statements would be a class H felony. That’s what basically the bill does and members, I stand to answer any questions and I would ask for your support of the bill. Speaker changes: Representative Howard..

cheers for mentors, a member who may have had an amendment, then they would like interior December third reading tomorrow so that we will not take their greetings and diagrams, and would you please take your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I see verbs in our review of the question presented Howard is lighting up Mister Yadav 's lives and how it in your just when he began speaking about this bill you refer to it as a clean up bill. how is the clean up bill. it sounds like an exemption bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] actually what I was told by the Senator on hand on him then admit that I'm not the most knowledgeable person on whom this field might not possess. I think that there were some provisions that date, MP has an RPI remembers were required to do some sort of things, and they were not really on our Apple ball to their job said what they were doing was trying to fit this group of April in a particular category that all of the things that are now required would be relevant to the job that they did follow a facility of the asserted yields or ribs and Howard Goldstein is bulimia. this way, now [SPEAKER CHANGES] it seems that these folks in the MPO is the IPOs were subject to all the provisions of the state ethics act that a lot of people are. and over time I've had a lot of different people in these kinds of appointed organizations complain about all the paperwork they vow to fill out so my question is, is this not just trying to singling out a couple groups to let them avoid filling out the paperwork for the state of exact version of our version of Howard via the how does a representative Sam. maybe I will respond. I question this lady was the over is ideal to read safety standards examined as amount redraft the same as recognized that look my understanding is that this dog. this part was requested by the state ethics commission because they are being inundated by paper from people who technically a fit under the statute, but really were not met, having make heavy decision-making authority is the public policy as my understanding of it. yes, it's an exemption, but it's a rational exemption so were not asking the whole world to follow SES, that's where I'm wrote on the street of mass murders and stand with this gentleman you at it. Junior Lorenzo Sam, are you saying in effect, this is what we often call in agency bill that the state ethics commission has requested this new. they've reviewed it and support on Thursday because one more question presents presented famous German, you don't you well as you know, you've been around a long time, and so by that the state ethics commission does not object to the bill is a little bit different than, say, what's the origins of the bill and do you think that the MPO Zen and rural comparable rural organizations are to be exempt from the requirements of the state of exact do you believe that I think the way it's written. it's all very well balanced in its proper speed. remember Jennifer has written a nervous the house. I don't hear any explanation for why the MPO 's in the RPO Zoology exempt from the ethics regulations. I think if you're like me you gotten complaints from people people don't know why they shouldn't have to fill out these forms to serve on the community college for I've gotten will the Jerry from someone is appointed to the board of governors who was furious that he was asked to fill out all this stuff. I'm just not convinced and understand written power of them spam our innocence carrying water for the billets. the Senate bill, but I haven't heard anyone tell me why it's fair to exempt these two groups. women got always other groups that are equally unhappy with the paperwork, so I can't support the bill and I hope you have hourly things are purpose to calculate. he is a raid your for Christ. yes, resolutely, we'll publish it generally yields refugee lady and the staff has just pointed out to me that these graves are not being eggs they did, they are just making change is a type of documentation that they file, but they are still in included. if you would like all wrong place

Y'all. Line 1 through line 15 clarifies that these are the forms that they are still required to file, and they are under no circumstance exempt from the required documentation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. May I continue, Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Howard for pointing that out. Notwithstanding, it seem that they're being put in a special category. No one's explained to me how they are different from others. NPO, community college board member, what's really the difference? I'm not persuaded, and I'm voting no. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner, 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. This bill is an attempt to clarify who is covered and what they have to disclose. It's an attempt to bring some openness into the MPO system, where now we've had some MPO members this year say, "We'll just pay the fine. We're not disclosing anything." Because the revision was weak, this is an attempt to narrow the focus of who has to fill out the paperwork and what they have to say and give some teeth to people who may or may not feel like doing it. And we members that are elected here all have to fill out this paperwork, and it's an attempt to show and bring into the open who's doing what and why they're doing it and what their possible motivations may be and just to bring some clarity and openness to the process. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Stam might yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm working on four other bills over here. You probably know the answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask my question or redirect to Representative Howard, that may be easier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, I hope you know the answer to your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't. But I agree with actually a significant portion of the bill, but I was informed and I wasn't on committee. My question is, understanding or forgetting the SEI issue, is there any provision in this bill that abrogates or eliminates the gift ban requirements on these folks? That's my bigger question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, staff to the committee just tells me that they remain under the state gift ban. That's the criminal statutes, but they are no longer under the state government ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think I understand that. Thank you very much. That was my question. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ford, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I served on the Cabarrus Rowan MPO for two years. And we didn't get any pay, and we met about six or seven times per year. And it's a totally voluntary board. They're made up of elected officials, so you're already taking ethics training as an MPO RPO member. We didn't vote on any contracts on the MPO, so we're not awarding anyone a contact. So there's nothing involved when it has to do with money. I think this bill actually goes a little too far, but I'm going to support it because it does scale it back somewhat. In our local MPO we already lost two members because they had already taken ethics training as an elected official and they didn't have the time nor the want to do it all over again and add more to what they're already doing in their service to their community. So I think it's a bill I can get behind and I can support, but this is still a little too much in my opinion. But I will support it today. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I, like my colleague, most recently served on the MPO, and I in fact shared the MPO in the

?? one of the things that I'd focus on for those that are just looking at this for the first time is that this relates to all individuals with voting authority serving on the NPO. The legislation that was originally passed broadly applied to these two entities, but the entities also had these advisory committees, and so people that were simply there to provide advice but had no voting authority are getting sucked into the whole set of ethics regulations that are here. I'm all about supporting disclosures and the ethics but I agree that this is very appropriate narrowing to exclude a small portion of people who probably shouldn't be caught up in this debate, they don't have voting authority, and I would urge your support for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker when I first heard this bill and also heard some comments in general government from the board of elections. My concerns have always been that I think that the board of elections has enough to do and to add about seven NPOs to that responsibility is a little bit too much, so I have questioned that, and it is my understanding from many ?? that it was part of the statute that they should do it. I don't want to support the bill, because I see no need in having the NPOs to do this, but however is here, but, to me, it's giving the board of elections additional work, that they're already understaffed, in which to do. So I'm still wondering now, why when in government there was two municipalities which to be exempt from this, and some way they was unable to do it out there. To me, the board of elections has enough to do, to give them at least seven to eight more NPOs to evaluate, and many, to my understanding, they may not have the time in order to do it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was concerned a little bit about the paperwork factor because this is actually less paperwork than what would be under the existing law. These advisory people and staff people are caught up in this, they don't have voting authority, they're not elected officials who've elected the NPOs and RPOs, representative McGrady had it exactly right. Linked with that is actually less paperwork from all these other folks who shouldn't be filling these out anyway. Hopefully that clarifies a little bit, this is the way the bill was originally explained to me, and I'm not sure what all it went through since then, so I wasn't going to speak until that came up. But it is that these advisory folks are not voting, not to have to do this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate. If not the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute to senate bill 411 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. 97 having voted in the affirmative, 18 in the negative, the house committee substitute to senate bill 411 in passed in its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Senate bill 489 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, I would like to remove my objection to the third reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there further objection? Noted, the clerk will read. The gentleman ?? ?? Representative Wilkins does the gentleman intend to offer an amendment at this time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then if we will we will we will temporarily, since I've asked the clerk to read the senate bill 489 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute for senate bill 489 the bill has been titled "An act to modify the maximum interest rate allowed and to make various amendments to the North Carolina consumer finance act to ensure continued access to credit." General assembly of North Carolina ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, in order that we may be able to dispose of senate bill 411

The Senate Bill 489 will be temporarily displaced. Is there objection to reading Senate Bill 411 for a third time? The clerk will read. SPEAKER CHANGE ?? of North Carolina ?? SPEAKER CHANGE Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee substitute to Senate Bill 411 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. SPEAKER CHANGE Aye. SPEAKER CHANGE All opposed say no. SPEAKER CHANGE No. SPEAKER CHANGE The ayes have it. The House Committee substitute to Senate Bill 411 has passed its third reading and will be returned to the Senate. Now we have Senate Bill 489 properly before us. Representative Stames, please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGE To debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGE The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGE Mr. Speaker, members of the House, I thought on both sides we had a good debate yesterday. I really don’t have anything additional to add, except to say that I think it’s a very sound, reasonable bill and I urge your support. SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Fisher, please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGE To debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGE The lady is recognized to debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGE Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to remind the body of some of the things that we talked about yesterday, this is a consumer finance loan that really does take unfair advantage of military families, the elderly, the poor. It preys on these folks and it is opposed by the Attorney General, by the AARP, which I figure is one of our larger constituent group, both republicans and democrats have a lot of AARP members in their constituency, as well as the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, and it’s just a bad way to do business in North Carolina, and I hope that you will join me in opposing this bill. Thank you. SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Queen. Please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGE To speak on the bill. SPEAKER CHANGE The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGE I’ll just speak briefly on this bill. To me, we’re in economic times when interests rates is the lowest in my lifetime, and what we’re doing here is allowing interest rates to be raised on those constituents of ours who have the least capacity to pay these predatory rates. We open this session each day with a prayer, and I think of the Lord’s Prayer in this regard. This is the foundational prayer of most of our faiths in this room, and the version in Matthew points out the two planks of the Lord’s program, to provide food for all and to forgive debts, because debt has been a way to play on people from the first century til today. We want to be very careful in this regard. We are really opening predatory lending in a bigger way in North Carolina and … SPEAKER CHANGE Mr. Speaker? SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Czoka, please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGE I’d like to ask the Representative if he would yield for a question? SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Queen, does the gentleman yield? SPEAKER CHANGE I sure would. SPEAKER CHANGE The gentleman yields. SPEAKER CHANGE You keep mentioning the word predatory. Are these companies that we’re talking about? Are they engaging in illegal activities as defined by North Carolina statute? SPEAKER CHANGE Repeat your question once again. I’m having trouble catching it. SPEAKER CHANGE You’re talking about predatory lending. SPEAKER CHANGE Yes. SPEAKER CHANGE You’re talking about companies in North Carolina doing business. My question for you, sir, is are they conducting illegal business, according to the North Carolina statutes? SPEAKER CHANGE I am not sure if I know the answer to that question. I do know what predatory lending looks like, which is when people have few choices and the lenders come to this legislature to limit those choices or to open up opportunities to prey upon them in their limited base, the least among us, then their economic opportunities just get withered away and they get preyed on by the powerful financial interests. SPEAKER CHANGE Mr. Speaker? SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Czoka? SPEAKER CHANGE I would ask the speaker to yield for a follow-up question? SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Queen, does the gentleman yield? SPEAKER CHANGE The gentleman yields. SPEAKER CHANGE Are not these customers going to these companies making a free and open choice? SPEAKER CHANGE I don’t think that would be the way I would

In my opinion, the direction we should be going in this General Assembly in these times, is trying to help those who have credit needs get lower-priced credit not higher-priced credit. So I think we're just going in directly the wrong way with this bill. So that is my point. The final phrase in the Lord's Prayer is "lead us no into temptation." Just because you can take advantage of a man doesn't mean you should and I think this General Assembly oughta be looking after its citizens rather than allowing the expansion of high-priced credit to the least among us. So I will be voting no against this bill. [speaker change] Representative Szoka please state your purpose. [speaker change] To debate the bill. [speaker change] The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill. [speaker change] Ladies and gentlemen, we've heard several things so far on the floor debate today that we heard yesterday and we had a good debate hearing all the issues ??. I'd like to remind everyone here on both sides of the aisle, that this bill did pass unanimously out of banking. Republicans and democrats voted for it. It's been stated that this is discriminatory and predatory on military members. That issue has been specifically addressed in the bill to take care of that as I explained yesterday and I won't repeat myself on that. I think that what this bill does it offered people a choice. They have many choices. They can choose to get credit cards, which as I explained yesterday more frequently traps people into much more longer instances of making payments and many tens of thousands of dollars more before they get it paid off. The goodness of these loans is, is that a person who decides of their own free will to take it, no one's forcing them to do it, is that they can determine their own payments. Whether on 12 month repayment schedule, 24, 36 month. They know they can plan. And as I mentioned yesterday, many of the people that I have seen their credit reports and talked with them over the years involved in the mortgage industry, they like that. They like that as a matter of their choice. And when it comes to the total amount of dollars that they spend repaying these loans it is much much less over time than if they did some other option such as credit cards. I still think this is a good bill and I ask your support for it. [speaker change] Speaker, may I ask a question. [speaker change] Representative McManus please state your purpose. [speaker change] Representatives, I'd like to ask Representative Szoka a question. [speaker change] Representative Szoka, does the gentleman yield? [speaker change] I do. [speaker change] The gentleman yields. [speaker change] I'm curious, if we built in things into this bill to protect certain members of the military so that they are not abused by this bill, then why would we not build in those same things to protect low income individuals? Why would we feel a need to protect the military but not a need to protect the public. [speaker change] Thank you for that question. The military has a chain of command. A private, or a specialist or a corporal has a duty and a responsibility that is much different than someone who isn't in the military. Particularly in a wartime situation with them deploying it's important for them to make good choices. A member of the general public doesn't have a chain of command. Who would we call to ask if Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith if they wanna do it. That may or may not answer your question but I don't know who ?? would call. I think that the protection is there and it comes back to personal choice for an individual who's in a civilian economy trying to plan their life and finance their needs to the best of their ability. [speaker change] Follow-up? [speaker change] Does the gentleman yield? [speaker change] I do. [speaker change] Gentleman yields. [speaker change] By that means, I mean, why not have to ask their employer if they're able to pay this? It's the same principle to me as asking in the military, you're asking their employer, their supervisor if they're gonna be able to handle this kind of debt. And obviously we know that this is going to be debt that a lot of people can't handle. Why would we not ask an employer then, is your employee able to handle this kind of debt? [speaker change] That's an interesting question. A civilian working for whatever company can quit anytime they want to. A soldier, marine, airman, coast guard person, they don't have that option. There are other considerations when you're in the military and you're preparing for deployment. Things that folks have to do.

soldiers have to do that civilians don’t have to do because they’re not deploying off to a combat zone somewhere, and one of those things is the chain in command helps those individuals make sure that their financial affairs are in fact in order. They’re provided financial counseling. Another thing is wills, powers of attorney. It’s the military’s responsibility to make sure that the military members prepare to go overseas in the event that something happens when they’re overseas, that their prepared for. Storage of automobiles – the military gets involved in that. If you’re a civilian, you want to take a vacation for six months, there’s nobody to care about your car except you, so there are a number of, in my mind, key distinctions between military service and the general civilian public which… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] … necessitate the… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman, the gentleman will yield until the discussion between the two members concludes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Which necessitate the provisions that are written into this bill that apply only to the military. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, and after Mr. Goodman I would like to speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady had the floor and the lady may speak, unless the gentleman wishes to ask a member to yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the member yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Which member? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Szoka. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recognized back in turn. Representative Szoka? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Szoka, would it be illegal to talk to an employer about an employee’s credit information? [SPEAKER CHANGES] While I am not an attorney, I believe that that would be… Well actually I can answer that, yes, because under… If you’re talking about credit scores and things like that, in my view it would be illegal. We might have an attorney answer that for a definitive answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the House. I know this is third reading and we had a vote on this yesterday, but I did vote no and both times, this year and last session, I came in and thought maybe I might just vote for this, and I ended up not, mainly because I just didn’t feel right about it. I like to feel good about my votes and I don’t know, but maybe this happens to you, but this is a vote that if you’ll remember two years ago a member changed his vote two weeks later on, so this is an issue that can sit with you whether you voted right or not, but someone asked me why I didn’t vote for it, and part of it is because the firm I’m with does a lot of bankruptcy, so I see debtors and creditors a lot. Now I don’t do much consumer. We have people that do a lot of consumer. I do a lot of trustee work, so I help pick up the pieces and pay the creditors, and I’ve just seen a lot of people who get trapped in debt. Also it’s because of a military background, and I didn’t command a company, but I was a Battalion S1 in Korea, meaning I was the Battalion Commander, the Colonel’s right hand person. I could sign papers for the Commander that had the force of order, and we had… In the military you’ve got two overriding concerns: accomplish the mission, take care of the troops, and sometimes those intertwine, and I cannot tell you how difficult it was dealing with problems of the service members. We’d have… we had a ville outside, and we’d meet with club owners and we’d tell them “Please don’t give our men credit,” and yet payday they’d come around wanting us to collect the money for them, among other problems with the ville, and I’d seen these men and they’re great soldiers. They’ll be somebody who might get drunk and beat somebody up Friday night, but he’ll be busting his tail to help his unit accomplish its mission during the week. They’re heart and soul, but many times the E1s and E4s and maybe even above don’t use good judgment, and it is a constant headache for commanders to try to keep their soldiers in line and keep their personal problems – financial, family – from interfering with that overriding accomplishing the mission, and these kinds of things do get in the way, and I have mixed emotion because I think there’s times when these loans might be the only way someone can go, but I still just don’t feel this is good, and finally perhaps an overriding reason is we’re told that well costs have gone up and this hasn’t changed in 30 years, but 30 years ago the cost of lenders for their funds

there's like 12, 15 percent and now it's probably less than 1 percent. There's so much money out there with the fed putting 85 billion new dollars each month into the money supply that the costs are lower than ever so their spread should be high already so I don't see the overriding need for it and I don't feel comfortable voting for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hanes please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to, reference my comments. First by saying that I have certainly worked with Representative Szoka on a bill earlier this year I sat on the banking committee. I respect the work that the bill sponsors have done on this bill. I'd also like to say that consumer lending and finance companies are certainly legal and they are legitimate business organizations. They have a right to operate in an ethical manner and I honor their right to do so but I stand today to say that I'm going to oppose this bill. Two consumer advocacy groups have taken a neutral stance on this bill in the last few days. Well we don't get to take neutral stands in here. We have to vote red or green and most of us walk and we answer for the votes that we take. I believe in my heart of hearts that this bill will place an unnecessary rate burden on distressed families already struggling to make ends meet. They'll allow loans that would be packed with multiple expensive credit products and these legitimate and legal business operations do have less than a 6 percent default rate. I don't think anybody can deny that. Everything tells us that but they accomplish it by keeping their audience captive by refinancing the loans over and over again and that unfortunately leads to a never ending cycle of debt for those people who are already in highly volatile and sometimes generationally distressed positions. Free markets, consumer choice, free choice, people making their own decisions, I get all that. I understand. These businesses while legal and legitimate and are certainly, pursue the loans, the loans are certainly pursued by free choice are directly aimed at individuals, many of whom I represent in my district and I have seen what can happen in these circumstances and they are people who often times that we in this chamber, this session, in a somewhat bipartisan fashion, these are people who we just cut unemployment on. We cut the earned income tax credit on them. We're denying Medicaid in some instances and we cut pre-K enrollment so in a very bipartisan fashion we have reduced poor people's ability to pay their bills and made it more difficult for them to afford healthcare and afford to educate their children and now we are supporting lenders with a substantial rate increase. It's legitimate. It's legal. I understand that and ?? will certainly choose to use these lenders but I wonder if we are doing the right thing with this bill and that is why I will be opposing it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Presnell please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Szoka a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Szoka does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? been allowed to raise our interest rates? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe it's since 1983 or 1985. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think things have gone up since then. Don't you think? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen we're going to temporarily displace this bill. Each and every time the queue goes down one or two more lights come on so we're going to move ahead to Senate bill 306. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute for Senate bill 306. A bill to be entitled and act to exclude the administration of a lethal injection from the practice of medicine; to codify the law that prohibits regulatory boards from sanctioning health care professionals for assisting in the execution process

Commend the law and the administration of a lethal injection to require the setting of an execution date for any of the advanced switch, are provided by statute, having had occurred and to eliminate the process by which a defendant may use statistics to have a sentence of death reduced to life in prison without parole. To require periodic reports on the training and availability of personnel to carry out a death sentence, and to require periodic reports on the status of pending post conviction capital cases. "General Assembly of North Carolina enact". (Speaker Changes) "Representative Stam, please state your purpose." (Speaker Changes) "Speak on the bill?" (Speaker Changes) "The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill." (Speaker Changes) Mr. Speaker, members of the house, we debated this a long time yesterday, and we learned of course that the so-called racial justice act... Section five. If it's repealed, a capital defendant retains all of the rights which the state and federal constitutions provide to ensure that the prosecutors, who selected a jury and who sought a capital conviction, did not do so on the basis of race. That the jury who hears his or her case is impartial, that the trial is free from prejudicial error of all kind, and yet ninety percent of the debate, from the opposition, assumed that that wasn't still the law. It is. I saw a newspaper report today that said Quote "the Racial Justice Act, allows a defendant to prove that race infected his case." Actually, they said "their", bad grammar, but his case. It doesn't. Other laws do that. I encourage you to vote again for the bill. Get justice back into the death penalty scenario.(Speaker Changes) "Representative Jackson, please state your purpose." (Speaker Changes) "Send forth an amendment." (Speaker Changes) "The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read."(Speaker Changes) "Representative Jackson moves to amend the bill on page one, lines eight through ten, by re-writing the lines to read." (Speaker Changes) "The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment." (Speaker Changes) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentleman, yesterday, I ejected a third reading so that I could prepare this amendment because I do support capital punishment. But I am also, and proud, to have voted for the Racial Justice Act four years ago. You can say how I voted four years ago but you cannot say why. You don't know what was in my mind, nor do you know what was in my heart. Many of us that voted for the Racial Justice Act, did not do so because we wanted to see an end to the death penalty as stated yesterday by proponents of this bill. We voted for the RJA because we wanted the death penalty to be applied uniformly and without regard to race. Be it the perpetrator, the victim, or an individual juror, race should play no part in the process. Now you don't need my vote to pass this bill, so I know what kind of support I'm gonna get from my amendment, but it's important to let my constituents know why I voted the way I did on this bill. I would absolutely vote for this bill should my amendment succeed. My amendment would delete section five of the bill while allowing the remainder to move forward in an effort to re-start capital punishment. I agree that healthcare professionals, that choose to participate in a state sanction punishment, shouldn't be at risk of professional discipline. I certainly believe that lethal injection is a better more humane alternative to the electric chair or gas chamber. This more humane method requires the assistance of professionals, and so I support it. But let me tell you why I think deleting section five will actually result in capital punishment re-starting sooner, and why many of you as proponents of the death penalty should support deleting this section. Passage of section five will have the un-intentioned consequence of giving one hundred and forty convicted murderers at least two additional claims to litigate in state and federal courts. You heard Representative Stam say that section five spells out all these rights that these people already have, but by deleting section five your actually giving them two additional claims based upon constitutional doctrines that were not discussed on the floor yesterday. At least not in detail. The first is equal protection. Judge Weeks has made decisions already in a few cases. These cases are on appeal to the supreme court. Now we are going to come behind him and say that the Racial Justice Act cannot be used by over one hundred and forty other defendants. How do we tell other defendants, some in Cumberland county, some in Bladen County,(which I believe is the same district) that a few defendants were allowed use of this procedural defense but the remaining of you are not? How is that equal protection under the law? What court is going to uphold that unequal treatment? The second potential claim created by section five of this bill is what is known as the...

edition against ex post facto, or retroactive laws. And that's something I was actually surprised not to hear about yesterday. In the United States, both Congress and the States are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by the US Constitution. No criminals laws regarding punishment may be retroactive. When it comes to a criminal law or punishment, you don't give someone a right, allow them to assert it, and then take it away. To do so, I believe, is a violation of the ex post facto clause. It certainly would raise the claim that would have to be litigated in court for years to come. Which brings me to my final point. There's no fiscal not to this bill, and you should expect the high\t cost of the passage of Section 5 of this bill, because you are gift wrapping even more avenues for appeals for these murderers, and the state is going to have to defend those cases, and those actions, and maybe even pay their attorneys to prosecute them. But regardless of the cost. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To see if Representative Jackson would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Does the gentlemen yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes, I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Jackson, do you have any idea how much the Racial Justice Act has already cost us in court costs in North Carolina? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, if I could respond. I looked at the fiscal notes of Representative Collins, last night back in 2009 and it was an indeterminate amount, and I don't have anything to add to that. But regardless of the costs, like it or not, the Racial Justice Act gave these 140 murderers an avenue of contesting their death sentences. Now, many of these claims are probably not legitimate or valid, and they're probably going to be dismissed soon, when the Supreme Court makes this pronouncement, or when some prosecutors actually start to make and schedule motions to dismiss. So where we are currently less than a year from closing many, if not all of these claims, passage of Section 5 will add new constitutional claims that will add many more years of litigation in the state and federal courts. It may sound counter-intuitive to those of you who fought the Racial Justice Act since its inception in 2009, but if you were actually for support of restarting capital punishment anytime soon, then you shouldn't support Section 5 of this bill. It will add 5, 10 years more in the delay to executing anyone. Deleting Section 5, as my amendment does, is the only way to truly way to restart capital punishment. I would as for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To debate the amendment, and then to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, members of the House, at the conclusion of my remarks, I'm going to do a motion to the table and I informed Representative Jackson I'd do this after givings him a chance to explain it. The reason I do this is, of course, is that we've debated this exact same issue an hour and a half yesterday, and this is the 5th time we've debated this in the last 3 or 4 years. And one thing that's not a reason is the fact that when it was passed in 2009, the question was called without allowing the minority leader even to speak on the bill, if you can imagine that Representative Arp. But I would like to address these 2 claims. First of all, ex post facto law doesn't apply. we had a very good memorandum from staff help hill, in the North Carolina constitution, it's Article 1, Section 16, if you want to open your books, if you have it there. Retrospective laws punishing acts committed before the existence of such laws, and by then only declared criminal, or oppressive or unjust, or incompatible with liberty, and therefore no ex post facto law should be enacted. Well, the reason I mention that is the only person who can claim ex post fact on this would be the murderer who committed the murder after 2009, but before Senate Bill 416. That would be an interesting case, but none of the people on death row are in that category, or if they are, maybe it's one of them. Secondly, equal protection, this is interesting. Just because Judge Weeks applied facts many of which could be asserted without the Racial Justice Act, but he shoe horned it into the Racial Justice Act, I think he thought we were kidding with the 2012 law. Just because he picks out 4 out of a queue of 154, therefor you have to apply to all of 150 others that same law, well that would constitute Judge Weeks the law giver of North Carolina. If you want to apply equal protection to that claim, you would apply it the other way, and get his 4 people back in the queue. So I think we've debated this at great length, it's a serious subject it, needs to be debated at great length, and we've done that, so therefor Mr. Speaker, I move the table the

The motion by Representative Stam has been duly seconded by Representative Moore. The question before the House is the motion to lay upon the table the amendment set forth by Representative Jackson to the House Committee substitute for Senate bill 306. All in favor vote 'Aye. All opposed vote 'No'. The clerk will record the vote. The clerk ??? machine will record the vote. 73 having voted in the affirmative, 39 in the negative, the motion passes. Ladies and Gentlemen, we're back on the bill. Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [speaker changes] To debate the bill. [Speaker changes] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill [Speaker changes] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too like Representative Jackson, believe in the death penalty. I believe that certain crimes are so hideous and so despicable that capital punishment is in order. But I also believe that we in society, we the collective society, must be moral in administering whatever judgment that we administer. There's no question that all of the instances that I listened to yesterday in terms of perpetrators of hideous crimes deserve the death penalty. I don't feel sorry for any of them. But my problem, like that of Representative Jackson is with Section 5 - how we go about our jury selection. Yes, I wish we had another bill, and perhaps someday we'll get one. This is what Judge Weets??? was alluding to. In our society, we have to and we should, if we're going to stick with our moral fortitude, do it the right way. We all want justice. We all want to see criminals who commit despicable crimes receive justice for their immoral acts. But you know, District Attorneys that we saw yesterday, and I will say also defense attorneys, are given liberal latitude when it comes to recusals or strikes in jury selection. And that's a problem. We all admit that that's a problem. We shouldn't want it either way, for the DAs or for the defense. We ought to respect our citizens' rights to serve as jurors. I understand that there are needs. There are needs at times for strikes, but these strikes should not be arbitrary or capricious, or in some instances, immoral strikes. Let's do it the right way. And we can, as legistators, do it the right way. If we could fix this section 5, you have my unequivocal support for the death penalty. I don't think we need to confuse the two. Let us do the right thing. And until we can do the right thing, I have to vote no. [Speaker changes] Representative Baskerville, 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. I had intended on making some remarks yesterday afternoon, but we ran out of time, so I'll just make them today. I can certainly understand and respect Representative Daughtry's remarks yesterday, and can certainly relate to Representative Michaux's sentiments regarding his experience as an attorney in our state. As a former Assistant District Attorney in six different counties spread across two prosecutorial districts, I believe we have good district attorneys in our state. I believe that

By and large most of them are good, and fair, and try to dispense justice in a neutral fashion. But just like over the years, this body who, by and large, have been filled with good members who follow the law and do things the right way, from time to time we've had members here who didn't follow the law, and didn't do things how they should have. There's no difference in any other aspect of society. Now, we all are moved by the stories that we heard from Representative Moore and Dollar yesterday; acts so heinous that they almost are unimaginable. Now, the Racial Justice Act is not designed to overturn the jury's decision [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the gentleman yield to a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Baskerville, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Baskerville, is the gentleman familiar with the notion of Motions for Appropriate Relief? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is the gentleman aware that a Motion for Appropriate Relief can be filed and is filed before the existence of and exclusive of the Racial Justice Act to address exactly the kinds of questions that the gentleman is speaking of? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm aware that individuals can file Motions for Appropriate Relief in very limited circumstances. The avenues to file the motions were just limited last session, I believe. I am not aware of a Motion for Appropriate Relief that allows individuals to look at their jury selection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One additional question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is the gentleman aware that under the Motion for Appropriate Relief Statute that one of the grounds upon which that a defendant may assert is prejudicial error? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am aware that yes [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again, RGA, RJA is not designed to overturn the jury's decision regarding guilty or not guilty. The RJA is designed to ensure a fair, equal treatment in jury selection process. Now any trial lawyer worth their salt is gonna tell you how critical jury selection is. It's perhaps the most critical juncture in a jury trial. Those are the twelve people that are gonna listen to your side, and listen to the other side, and render their decision. Selecting the twelve people that are gonna decide guilty or not guilty, that's a critical juncture in the proceedings. The RJA provides the vehicle to ensure that that selection process was executed properly. That's why when I hear stories recounting the heinous, horrible crimes that occur, or stories that detail a racially equal jury, six blacks and six whites, I respect those stories, but the RJA does not mandate you have to have black folks on the jury, the RJA does not mandate that you have to have equal blacks and whites on the jury. The RJA is a process that allows, to make sure that that selection was done without imparti- with impartiality, and not done in a discriminatory fashion. It does not prohibit executions, just like my other colleagues, if the RJA would prohibit executions in this state, I would not be able to support it, 'cause there are certain aggravated crimes that are so reprehensible, that person has made it clear that they do not want to participate in civilized society anymore, and they've got to go. And I support that. But I also don't see a problem when we hear stories about white folks availing themselves of the protection of the RJA. The RJA is for to eliminate racial discrimination in jury selection regardless of whether its a black person or a white person. I think it's a great idea that white North Carolinians, black North Carolinians, Hispanic North Carolinians, all of them are gonna be entitled to a jury that was selected properly. I wonder if we had a bill that said only black folks could avail themselves of the protection of the RJA, would that pass this house? Of course it wouldn't. That's a completely specious argument. I wonder what the proponents of [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative

[SPEAKER CHANGES} Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES} To see if the gentleman would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES} Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES} The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES} And Representative Baskerville, on your same argument, how do you feel about discrimination based on gender? [SPEAKER CHANGES} How do I feel about discrimination based on gender? I think it's a bad thing. I don't think we ought to discriminate based on gender. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES} Do you know how many women are on death row as compared to men? [SPEAKER CHANGES} I would imagine it's less women on death row as men on death row. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Does the lady wish to ask another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES} Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES} Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES} The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES} And would it be substantially less women than there are men? [SPEAKER CHANGES} I would, I don't know the answer to that but I'm willing to venture the answer is yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES} One last follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES} Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES} The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES} So based on that, statistically don't we have gender bias on death row? [SPEAKER CHANGES} Once again, once again Representative Stevens, I appreciate your question. The issue is not who is on death row, whether they're male or female, whether they're black or white. The issue is the selection of the jurors. I mean I think we're getting off tangent here. I don't think we ought to discriminate against women, I don't think we ought to discriminate against anybody when we're selecting the 12 people who are going to decide whether someone lives or dies. There is no rectifying a situation after you pull that switch. So I think that's the wrong argument. If there was a bill that said that, I just think that's not the issue here with the Racial Justice Act. Justice. The Establishment. Or determination of rights according to the rules of law and equity. Justice. We heard a lot about justice yesterday. The rule of law says there shall be no discrimination in the jury selection process. RJA allows that those rights are protected. The rules of equity ensure that victims of crimes, they know that our government, the prosecutors, will protect their interests and pursue those responsible individuals in a legal fashion. It's not just justice for the victims. It's not just justice for the criminals. It's justice for all. I think that the RJA is a just bill and ask that you all vote against this particular bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Representative Richardson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a question of Representative Stams. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Representative Stevens? [SPEAKER CHANGES} Stams. [SPEAKER CHANGES} Reprentative Stam? [SPEAKER CHANGES} Yes. I'm sorry. I think he is one of the sponsors of this bill and that's why I'm directing this question to him. As a freshman [SPEAKER CHANGES} The Chair assumes the gentleman yields? [SPEAKER CHANGES} I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES} I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES} The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES} As a freshman naturally I do not have the history of the RJA and the issues surrounding the passing of it. But in Committee meetings we were presented with information and quote evidence as the reason why we have RJA and it was because it was proven that discrimination was been done in jury selection. So when I lay down at night I think about this bill and I think about the fact that we have a bill and now we want to repeal the bill and I wonder what kind of impact does that have on me as a voter here in this body that because the bill may be written badly or because people don't like the bill we want to repeal the bill. So what kind of consequences do I as a voter have to face based on whether or not this bill passes today? [SPEAKER CHANGES} Thank you for your question Representative. You heard a speech by Representative Glazier and you thought it was evidence but Representative Glazier is an advocate. For example he gave you a Michigan State survey. I went to Michigan State. School of Criminal Justice. And I had little juvenile delinquents that I took care of as part of an, and you may sit down if you want to, as part of an independent study. Thank you for the opportunity. And this was in 1971 and 1972 and I guarantee you that every one of them thought that the death penalty for murder was that you got the electric chair.

Speaker: Because they watch, what is that FER Show? [ Drag Me Up?] Speaker changes: You know what Michigan has not had the death penalty since it was a territory in 1843.The deterrent factor of the death penalty is not what you have in the books but what actually happens .Now if you think that some professor at Michigan State University is going to get in here when the public policy of the State of Michigan is opposed to capital punishment for almost two hundred years, he is doing a rational study, you are not thinking the way universities think. There were so many problems with that study that was cited as evidence and the biggest problem was this. They compared murder versus murder but not with the same aggravating circumstances. In other words, only.. you have to almost volunteer to be executed, or else kill six people, or slice people up; but that study did not adequately take into account aggravating circumstances; in other words you heard evidence but you didn’t hear the cross-examination. Speaker changes: Now, you can follow up. Speaker changes: Have an answer for Germanio? Speaker changes: Yes. I do. Speaker changes: Germanio. Speaker changed : Excuse me for up and downing, somebody says stand up and somebody else says sit down, but also I am still not sure that my question was answered; because I thought there was a case and maybe I misunderstood that have been taken to court that some evidence would come out of that ; am I incorrect on that. Speaker changes: Yeah Yes. Robinson case, Judge Weeks, one judge found that they were then prejudiced and in other cases in North Carolina , in other places, other years, other decades, other cases, then in Robinson’s case, where there were three minority people on the jury which at that time was roughly proportional to the population in xxx county, we decided that therefore Mr. Robinson was discriminated against; but that’s not what the law should be, the law should be whether Mr. Robinson was discriminated against not whether other people had been discriminated against in other cases. Speaker changes: Can follow up Speaker changes: Mrs. Germanio, Speaker changes: Yes, I do Speaker changes: Germanio . Speaker changes: So this is the law that we are repealing. My question again is, as a legislature, and we vote to repeal that law, what consequences will this body face by doing away with a law that was a law, to make.. Speaker changes: As far as I know, it’s been four hundred and fifty years since the legislature was actually punished for its legislative acts. So, no, you can’t be punished for anything you do here; except you can be unelected. Speaker changes: Thank you. Speaker changes: Representative Stevens, please take your papers. Speaker changes: See if you.. Representative more, you have a question. Speaker changes: Representative More, it’s Germanio.Germanio. Speaker changes: And Mr, Representative More you heard me ask the question about the differences on the death row? Speaker changes: I did. Yes. Speaker changes: And Representative More, did you enquire and see how, what the general make up was? on the death row?. Speaker changes: I did.[xxx/] Speaker changes: I was taken to[ Provenant?] Corrections, there were presently a hundred and fifty six people on death row, a hundred fifty two were men, four were women. Speaker changes: One last question. Speaker changes: Yes. Speaker changes: Germanio. Speaker changes: Representative More, are you aware that anyone xx bring in an issue of general discrimination? Speaker changes: No one. The same with the whole concept of this bill no one has, I think if you .. if you take some of the arguments used for the RJA, just working up wrong numbers and nothing else. You would have come to a conclusion that their agenda just as it is based on the numbers are wrong, I think it is not wise to floor in this bill and excuse me , there is no necessity for this bill to roll over back. Speaker changes: Representative please take your papers. Speaker changes: To debate the bill very briefly. Speaker changes: xxx to debate the bill. Speaker changes: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker, I have had my say on the bill yesterday and don’t want to abuse the body again today, but I did rise to answer a couple of questions because they weren’t answered ;they were raised and it is such an important bill, I think at least information..

ought to be available to people. First, I wasn't planning to address this but since the last go-round of questions I agree completely with Representative Stevens and Representative Moore on the data. Of course that's like comparing apples and oranges and suggesting they come from the same tree. I mean in the end the question is how many women are on death row versus how many murderers there are versus how many men versus how many murderers so sex discrimination may or may not be there but it has nothing to do with this and we're not even comparing the correct data. But that being said I'll move past gender discrimination which by the way is also unconstitutional and we know that from Supreme Court decisions. The issue that was interesting was raised by Representative Jordan yesterday. Representative Jordan asked the question and I think it deserves a really full response as to why Judge Weeks looked at and found race discrimination in jury selection in the Waters case when the Waters jury had six African Americans on the jury and six white members of the jury at least at that appears to be based on the record. Well I think there are a couple of answers. First, the Supreme Court has made it very clear as Representative Jackson and Baskerville and Michaux have said, that racially motivated exclusion of even one juror is unconstitutional. Atson said that. And so whether it's one or it's ten doesn't really matter. That violates the law. But in the Waters case there really is a much more interesting answer and since it's from my home county I actually wasn't sure of it but I went back and read the record last night. The prosecutors and Waters struck 10 of the 19 eligible African American jurors. That is they made their discretionary challenges to ten. That's 52.6% of them. They struck only 4 of the 26 white jurors who were potential for a strike rate of 15%. Secondly, they excluded many of those African American jurors but they couldn't exclude them all because the prosecutor ran out of challenges and some of the additional jurors who got on the jury because she had no more challenges to exercise were black and if she could have struck them she might would have. But she couldn't because she ran out of challenges. The interesting third part of this is if you go read the judge's findings and then the record in this case the judge found that the reasons that that prosecutor in that case struck 10 of those 19 African American jurors were so "transparently pretextual" that he found she came close to finding she perjured herself on the witness stand. And just for the record let me tell you three things that came out and this is of many findings. So the State struck black ?? member Jake Whitfield "because in part he knew some gang guys from playing basketball." The record showed that that juror had potential limited contact with certain individuals during a pick up game and he overheard them talking about potential gang activity. He was asked by the prosecutor would that affect his decision and he said that that exposure wasn't going to affect him at all but the State struck him. However, they didn't strike a non-black jury member named Tammy Johnson who'd gone through basic training and become "good friends" with a gang member and also testified she knew people in high school who were in gangs. That was one example said the judge. Second example, said the judge, the State submitted an affidavit asserting that in this case the prosecutor struck a black juror Ellen Gardner because her brother had been convicted of drug charges and received five years house arrest. And by the way, that's a legitimate reason to strike a juror. I mean in and of itself. The problem of course is, said the Court, that her explanation that that's why she struck the juror was implausible for a couple of reasons. One, the transcript revealed that Gardner wasn't close to her brother, that she testified that she believed he'd been treated fairly by the system and that her experience wouldn't affect jury service. Okay, you may or may not believe her. Her brother's experience was six years before jury selection. Well, that may or may not be sufficient. But here's the problem. The prosecutor then went on and accepted a non-black, a white jury member, Amelia Smith, whose brother was then at the moment she testified in jail for first degree murder.

she was talked with her brother through letters, you don't explain that. and finally, this is again to several examples, the state struck lack in our number. Calvin Smith because he was seventy four years of age. this right, but in other cases tried in nearly the same county same area upon by the same prosecutor. she accepted white jurors were seventy seventy and seventy three years old. either there's a difference between seventy three seventy four. I appreciate each year at my age that one year, but those are what were talking about. those are transparently pre textual reasons for strikes. I don't know. I was the judge decided this, but he found that among many others were so obviously a based on the sheets that you, the prosecutor had her she was checking on using anything she could to get black jurors off the bat violated the Constitution. our job here is to say whether he was right or wrong, whether she was in our job is also not to cut off the process of another close my comments am with a very personal, and I take this accurate personally because I don't think it was, and I've never said it was written in the best way and I am a pretty deep believer like represented Jackson actually in capital punishment. I would have had no problem voting for the death penalty for every single defendant, at the Nuremberg trials, and I wouldn't have any problem voting a lot of egregious cases, but I also probably know more than anyone in this floor, having been appointed by the court to defend defendants in a capital cases and eight on appeal sometimes we get it right. sometimes we get it wrong. I said this, my caucus and in our committee, I know some of these prosecutors. some of them are good friends and they in many cases, no race-based owns in my view, and thereby but they also were a product of their culture and their training and their time. I'm a product of my culture and training. I grew up and my mom grew up in a very white area, Pennsylvania and I love you very much twenty five years ago, but my mom grew up teaching me when I was a kid, I was allowed to go in the swimming pool. the black person was in that pool should be a long time to realize as a kid, a wrong, my mom wants to never stop loving her. she's wrong and I had to face that include passive and the prosecutors you make the stripes are good people, but they were wrong and we have to would knowledge that, and then try to make sure that we get better. we can not ignored by throwing away the racial Justice act twenty or send an e-mail. [SPEAKER CHANGES] please let your purpose to make the veil don't avert Azevedo by Calgary boys there a lot of names written on the floor yesterday, right another nine Tony something you know on April the twenty seventh two thousand and three was a quite Sunday and I got a phone call at home that would change my life tremendously. Tony summing was one of my Victor Sheriff 's worked for many years now. I call him in another culture been shot, and I responded to that sing in a Summit deputy Lane on the front steps of the trailer, his blood spread on the ground where the person he was done. is there one only took his gun away from him and shot him in the chest and the net anyway there and he bled to death officer that was whipping the same defendant pointed the gun between his office and was written to pull the trigger and the gun malfunctioned. given all this are just a few seconds to escape with enough quality shot him in the arm. he almost bled to death before help could get there he was airlifted.

Now the person that did all that. When it come to trial. He plead guilty. So he was found guilty. The only...the trial was the punishment phase whether he would get the death penalty or not. He did get the death penalty and he's on death row now. Now he was officially listed as an American Indian. But I don't believe that jury found him guilty because of his race. I think that jury found him guilty because he was a hard-working deputy sheriff out trying to do his duty. Because he committed the crime and he deserved that punishment. I don't think any law is fair whether it was passed last week, today, or next week, that allows anyone to cite statistics, state-wide statistics, in their appeal. if something was done wrong in that trial, it should serve on its merits and it should be investigated and if a District Attorney or a judge or somebody did something wrong in that particular trial, that's fine. They should have to stand for that and the right should be made wrong. But the use of state-wide statistics, to overturn or to look at some of these convictions, in my mind, is totally wrong and it will never be right no matter what anyone says. Thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Collins, please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES Briefly debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGES The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGES First of all let me say that, to Representative Jackson, that I empathize with you extremely and I would never try to define what your motives are in anything. But welcome to my world. I can't tell you how many times in the last three years I've had people from the other side of the aisle tell me what a horrible person I am because they can read my mind, tell exactly why I'm voting for a bill. So I have great empathy for you on that. I would never try to tell anybody what their motives are because I simply am not a mind reader. I've never been good at it, don't claim to be. I do know that I and most people on my side of this issue believe that the racial justice act, regardless of what the intent was, has basically been a de facto moratorium on the death penalty. I didn't realize though that the public on the other side of this issue also feels that way until I began to get an email earlier this week. The very same one, at least five times, and it's only two lines long and my response is only three lines long so I'd like to read it to you. That email says, "Dear Representative Collins, please vote against S306. The bill will amend the capital punishment law and will effectively re-instate the death penalty in North Carolina. I believe that capital punishment is wrong and I urge you to oppose this legislation." My response was, " I agree that the bill with re-institute the death penalty and thank you for your honesty on this matter. Most proponents of the so-called racial justice act will not admit that is is in fact a moratorium on the death penalty. For my part I believe the death penalty is reasonable justice for those who wantonly take innocent human life so I plan to vote for this bill." I would encourage you to do likewise so that we can relieve our state from this de facto moratorium on the death penalty. SPEAKER CHANGES Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute ??? 306 on its third 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. 76 voted in the affirmative. The chair will be recorded as having voted aye. 77 have voted in the affirmative. 39 in the negative. The house committee substitute bill 306 has passed its third reading and will be returned to the Senate. Now we're going to go to a less controversial bill, coming back to Senate bill 489. It is properly before us. 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 I'd like to give you a brief history on this bill because we've already had a lot of debate. In fact we've even had more debate than you may be recognizing. We had this bill last session and we passed it out of here pretty easily over to the Senate. It did not pass in the Senate and they spent the time between then and now working with the various parties who had concerns about this bill and created a bill that actually, by the time it passed the Senate, landed in banking, had been amended slightly in banking, not only did it receive no negative votes in the banking...

Committee but it also received comments from both the ?? responsable ?? and and the justice center that they were neutral on this bill. So. I know we can debate it some more, but we passed it in the second readings 7442 . Frankly I am not exited about the fact that our debate may leave us here untill Friday morning. So I urge your support of this bill that has been modified and worked on and even the most likely objectors to it are no longer speaking against it. Thank you. Speaker change Representative Jackson please state your purpose Just speak briefly on the bill The gentleman is recognized as to debate the bill Change speaker Thank you Mr. Speaker I just representative Collins referred to this yesterday and representative Samuelson just refered to it. I believe her quote was "it passed pretty easily last time". The vote last time was actually 60 to 55. Representative Collins is right it was very ?? is 4. Also about this part that is against this bill last time. And I do not consider a 60 to 55 vote to be that easy last time. This, we some of us contested this bill last time. We still oppose to it and ask you to vote against it. Speaker change The question before the house is to pass it to the house committee substitute to sent the bill for 89 on it third rating. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 69 have in voted affirmative, 44 in the negative. The house committee substitute. The senate bill 489. Has passed its third rating. It will be returned to the Senate. The amendments will be engrossed. Ladies and gentlemen we are going to try and dispose of a view more bills before we adjourn here, the chair is going to use some discretion to displace bills if we get into a anticipated lengthy debate. Senate bill 137 the clerk will read. House committee ?? for city bill 137 ?? regular business practice waiving required medicate and helpchoice recipient co?? by certain providers. Charleston, North Carolina next. Representative Murray before the gentleman is recognized pound motion of representative John Bell and representative Jimmy Dickson. The chair is happy to extent the courtesies of the gallery to a friend and Wayne County GOB, Board members Steve Herring. Steve please stand and let us welcome you. Representative Murry please state your purpose. Change speaker To debate the bill Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill Change speaker Thank you Mr. Speaker This legislation seeks to harmonise state law or federal law with regards to how pharmacy providers, permitted pharmacy providers how they deal with waiving copays ?? prescription medication for medicate prescriptions. This continues to allow for it the minimise waiver. Which means you can do it a view times. But you cannot make it part of your regular business practice. And in order to attract patients to your pharmacy or to your location and so I would ask members to be in support of the bill. And I will be available for any questions. Change speaker Further discussions further debate If not the question before the house is the passage of the house many substitutes to sent the bill 137 on its second rating. All in favour 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. 3 in the negative. The house committee substitute. The senate bill 137 has passed its second rating without objection. We will be right at 3rd time. Change speaker ?? North Carolina next. Change speaker Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the house is the passage of the house committee, substitute the senate bill 137 on its 3rd rating. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The aye's have it. The house committee substitute. The senate bill 137 has passed its 3rd rating. It will be returned to the senate representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. Change speaker Yes Mr. Speaker correct my vote on 137 to yes. Change speaker The gentleman will be recorded as having voted aye, on house bill 137 House or senate bill 433 the corporate. Change speaker 433 certain property carying vehicle paying for a declare

of weight that exceeds the statutory allowance. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill by Senator Rabin that corrects an error that we made in two different statutes. One creates the weight limits for trucks in the case of example I have here, a certain truck with two axles would have a limit of 37,000 lbs however, they may be required to register that truck for maximum weight allowed up to 40,000...excuse me, of 40,000 lbs because the single axle weight of 20,000 lbs a piece. They may be required to pay for registration in excess of the actual weight they carry. This will correct that. I urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 433 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. Representative Moffitt. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, Senate Bill 433 has passed its second reading. Without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 433 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 433 has passed its third reading. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Senate Bill 460. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for Senate Bill 460, the bill has been entitled An Act to Provide that the City of Belmont May Lease From the Department of Transportation the Department’s Interest in a Portion of the Piedmont and Northern Rail Corridor Within the Limits of the Town of Belmont. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The title basically says it all, Mr. Speaker. The bill authorizes Belmont and DOT into an agreement for interim public use of DOT’s ownership interest in the right of way the Piedmont northern Railroad in the Belmont area. For Rails to Trails Dreamway project. It will connect Belmont Abbey College to the Sisters of Mercy’s campus and downtown Belmont. DOT’s long used the corridor as a recreational trail. It even has determined that using the corridor as a recreational trail does not interfere with alternate transportation purposes of the corridor. And having not seen this trail, I would yield if they would like to speak to Representative Bumgardner or Torbett to speak on how good this trail is going to be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. The people in Belmont want this. They’re going to take an abandoned, sort of abandoned rail line. They don’t use it anymore. They can’t un-use it. They can’t abandon it. It’s kind of caught it one of these railroad limbo ordeals. But they want to make a rail trail out of it, but they want to keep it so that if they ever want to go back to using it, they can go back to using it. All the businesses and industries that the rail line used to serve are kaput, gone. It’s a way for people to get from Belmont Abbey College, which is on the east side of Highway 74 and 85, I might add, back over to town and they can build them a nice trail. They’ve been working on this a long time and it was very hard to get done. I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I have just two words, Mr. Speaker. Vote green. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the Senate committee substitute to Senate Bill 460 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members, please record. Representative Foushee. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 113 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative...

…Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 460 has passed its second reading without objection. It will be a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate, if not the question before the House is the passage of the Senate Committee Substitute, the Senate Bill 460, on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 460 has passed its third reading. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Representative Shepard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker. I incorrectly voted, I wanted to vote yes on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman records having voted aye. Ladies and gentleman of the House we are going to continue probably for another 10 or so minutes. So, 15 minutes on bills trying to dispose of the – of the as many as we can on the calendar. We're in conference with the rules chair and the appropriations chair. If having session at noon tomorrow presents an issue to anyone with the notice to meeting or commitment, will you please come and see Representative Moore and Representative Dollar over the next five minutes, otherwise we intend to convene at noon tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 486, clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 486. Bill to be entitled an act requiring hospitals to provide parents of newborns with educational information about pertussis disease and available vaccine protections in order to better protect newborns against pertussis disease. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Should debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman of the House this bill would require hospitals to provide the parents of newborn babies with educational information about pertussis disease and the vaccine protections that are available. I passed without opposition in both the senate and in the House HHS Committee. I'd ask for 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 486, on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. Representative Warren, the clerk will let the machine record the vote. 115 having vote in the affirmative, none in the negative, the House Committee Substitute, the Senate Bill 486 is passed its second reading without objection, will be read the third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate, if not the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute, the Senate Bill 486 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House Committee Substitute, Senate Bill 486 has passed its third reading. The bill will be returned to the Senate. Senate Bill 542 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 542, a bill to be entitled, an act to require long-term care facilities to require applicants for employment and certain employees to submit to drug testing for controlled substances. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, 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. Ladies and gentlemen, this bill is designed to protect people in adult care homes and nursing homes. Under this bill applicants to work in these homes must pass the drug test, and employees would be subject to random testing as a condition of continued employment. The bill also provides protection from civil liability for the entity performing the drug testing, its officers and employees for conducting or failing to conduct failure to employ the people based on testing results. The Department of HHS and the Department of Administration say that this bill has no physical impact. HHS – for applicants who are employed at the state operated long-term care facilities, most private nursing homes are currently doing drug screening for their employees as well. Again, this bill passed without opposition in HHS and also in the Senate and, Mr. Speaker, Representative Stevens has an amendment to offer that the bill's sponsors do support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens moves to amend the bill on page one lines 12 and 30 by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What this bill does is clarify that under the circumstances that the initial examination can be done in house. This will – to require even the initial applicant's drug test to go out would cost four times the amount of usual. This is covered under different statute but we wanted to clarify and make sure that it was in this one for the initial…

Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Stevens to the Senate committee substitute for Senate bill 542. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. The clerk will allow the machine to record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the amendment passes. We are now back on the bill. Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the Senate committee substitute for Senate Bill 542 is amended on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. All members please record. The clerk will allow the machine to record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The Senate committee substitute for Senate Bill 542 is amended as passed its second reading. Without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General assembly of North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the Senate committee substitute to Senate Bill 542 as amended on its third reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no, the ayes have it, the Senate committee substitute to Senate Bill 542 is amended as passed its third reading, will be returned to the Senate. Senate Bill 603, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 603 ?? the entitlement act to clarify that registration plates, registration tickets and certificates and titles can be issued directly by the division of motor vehicles offices located in the counties of Wake, Cumberland, and Meckingburg. General assembly of North Carolina, you're next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the bill. the gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's another bill, excuse me Mr. Speaker, from Central Raven and Harrington. and it's an agency request from DMV, just to change Raleigh, Fort Bragg and Charlotte to the counties of Wake, Cumberland, and Meckingburg. ?? your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate, if not the question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 603 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will allow the machine to record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. Senate Bill 603 has passed its second reading. Without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General assembly of North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 603 on its third reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The ayes have it Senate Bill 603 is passed its third reading. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Now we're going back to the first page of the agenda. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, we temporarily displace Senate joint resolution 431 is now properly before us. Representative Samuelson please, or representative Hardister please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, this is to confirm the governor's appointment of Ray Graves as a Commissioner of Banks. Mr. Graves is an excellent candidate for this position. He's been with this commission since 1974. He's been the acting interim commissioner since February 2012. He's held in high regard by members of both political parties. His confirmation was unanimous in the Senate. I would encourage members of the House to vote in favor of this resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate joint resolution 431. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. Representative Holly, Representative Rinsco. The clerk will allow the machine to record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. Senate joint resolution 431 has passed its second reading. Without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate resolves the House concurring. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of Senate joint resolution 431 on its third reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The ayes have it. Senate joint resolution 431 has passed its third reading. The bill will be enrolled. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, the chair is happy to extend a courtesies of the gallery and a thank you for his service to the newly confirmed Commissioner of Banks, Mr. Ray Graves. Mr. Graves please stand and let us welcome you.

[clapping] Speaker: Senate bill 528, the clerk will read. Clerk: House committee substitute 2 for Senate bill 528, an act to clarify that jurors are required to take the oath set forth in the NC constitution and provides consistency between statutes setting forth the oath to be taken by petty jurors [xx] NC act. Speaker: Representative Daltry, please state your purpose Representative: Thank you Mr. President. This bill comes from Senator Goolsby and it has to do with the oaths of a petit juror. A petit juror are those that are not serving on the grand jury. It simply says that you will take the oath as provided by the constitution and the other oath that you swear that you will truthfully, without partiality, try all issues and civil criminal cases that should come before, and give the verdicts according to the evidence, so help you god. There is no opposition to the bill. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? Representative Collins, please state your purpose. Representative: I would like to ask Representative Daltry a question. Speaker: Does the gentleman yield? Representative: Is it really legal to incriminate against small jurors? Speaker: Further discussion or further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute of senate bill 528 on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. Representative Terry and Conrad. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 150 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The House committee substitute to senate bill 520 has passed its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. Further discussion or further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute of senate bill 528 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [aye] All opposed say no. The aye’s have it. House committee substitute to senate bill 520 has passed its third reading and will be returned to the senate. Senate bill 520, the clerk will read. Clerk: house committee substitute for senate bill 520, a bill requiring that hearings of the industrial community are recorded, general assembly of NC [xx]. Speaker: Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. Representative: To debate the bill. Speaker: The lady is recognized to debate the bill. Representative: Members of the house, all this bill does is require that hearings before the committee be recorded. There is no additional cost tot the state. The cost is divided between parties pursuant to commission rules. It does indicate that it is effective when it becomes law and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recognized for an amendment. Speaker: The lady is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. Clerk: Representative Stevens moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 33, by rewriting that line to read… Speaker: The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. Representative : Thank you Mr. Speaker. This act will become active August 1, 2013, that is all the amendment does. Speaker: Further discussion or further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment set forth by Representative Stevens for the house committee substitute for senate bill 520. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 115 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes and we are back on the bill. Further discussion or further debate on the bill as amended? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute to senate bill 520 as amended on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 115 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The house committee substitute to senate bill 520 has passed its second reading, and, without objection, will be read a third time. Clerk: [xx] Speaker: Further discussion or further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute to senate bill 520 as amended on its third reading. All in favor will say aye. [aye] All opposed will say no. The aye’s have it. The house committee substitute to senate bill 520 as amended has passed its third reading and will be returned to the senate. Ladies and gentleman of the house, the chair would like to extend a welcome and thank you to the nurse of the day. The nurse of the day is Rachel Schido from Grandy, NC. Please stand and let us welcome you. Thank you for your service. [clapping]

Senate bill 530. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute for Senate bill 530. A bill to be entitled an act to prohibit the distribution of tobacco-derived products and vapor products to minors. The general assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fulghum please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker of the bill to speak [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank yo Mister Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen e-cigarettes are electronic cigarettes. They are a drug delivery system essentially delivering nicotine in a vaporized product. They're designed to essentially substitute for cigarettes. The purpose of this bill is to conform the existing statute prohibiting their sell or use by minors, people under 18 years of age and the key to the bill, getting it through the Senate and Senator Goolsby was instrumental in this, was defining this as a tobacco product. I urge your acceptance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion. Further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute to Senate bill 530 on it's second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. The clerk ?? record the vote. 114 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative. The House committee substitute Senate bill 530 has passed it's second reading without objection and will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion. Further debate. If not the question before the house is the passage of the House committee substitute to Senate Bill 530 on it's third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The House committee substitute to Senate bill 530 has passed it's third reading and will be returned to the Senate. Senate bill 539. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute for Senate bill 539. A bill to be entitled an act to authorize the county jury commission to obtain date of birth information from board of elections when preparing the master jury list and to ensure the confidentiality of the dates of birth of prospective jurors. The general assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the title does cover the bill. It allows the county jury commission to request from the board of elections birth dates for purposes of composing a master jury list and it does indicate in the second part that would remain confidential. I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion. Further debate. If not the question before the house is the passage of the House committee substitute to Senate Bill 539 on it's second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. Representative Waddell? The clerk ?? machine record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative. None in the negative. The House committee substitute to Senate Bill 539 has passed it's second reading without objection. Will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion. Further debate. If not the question before the house is the passage of the House committee substitute to Senate Bill 539 on it's third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes appear to have it. The House committee substitute to Senate bill 539 has passed it's third reading and will be returned to the Senate. Senate bill 634. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for Senate bill 634. A bill to be entitled an act to increase the criminal penalties for interference with gas, water or electric lines. The general assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the House this combines two other statues that currently exist into one that is for interfering with gas, water and electric lines. It provides that if your are tampering with those facilities for the purpose of gaining evidence for gaining utility service for free its prima facie evidence of the intent to violate the law if it in fact been tampered with. The first violation is a class one misdemeanor. A second one is class H felony. A violation that would result in significant property damage or public endangerment is a class F felony and unless the conduct is covered under some other provision our law providing greater punishment a violation that results in a death would be a class D felony. You can also be, currently a person can be

Now simply liable for losses and fines up to $500.00 whichever is greater that would increase the fines up to $5000.00. It becomes affective December 1st, of this year. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion, further debate. If not a question before the house is the passage of Senate Committee Substitute the Senate Bill 634 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. 114 have voted in the affirmative, one in the negative. The Senate Committee Substitute the Senate Bill 634 has passed it second round of reading without objection. It will be Read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina denied. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of Senate Committee Substitute the Senate Bill 634 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The Ayes have it. The Senate Committee Substitute the Senate Bill 634 has passed its third reading and will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Ladies and Gentleman, this concludes the calendar for the day. We will have session beginning at noon tomorrow. We will carry as much of the calendar as we can tomorrow; we’re not quite sure how long it will go. It will not go any longer than 3 p.m. But we will begin at noon. At the current time it is possible but not probable that we will not have a session on Friday. I did say that it is possible, but not probable. We should be able to report to either later today, first thing in the morning. If we do have session on Friday, it will be from probably 10 p.m. to noon. The appropriations committee intends to meet I think on Saturday, maybe Saturday morning, but certainly Friday morning. And later Friday afternoon. Notice this is announcements Representative Dollar please state your purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The Gentlemen has been recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]This is for everyone that is on appropriations, just try to clarify where we are. The Subcommittees will be meeting at 8:30 on Friday morning. 8:30 on Friday morning and the Subcommittees Chairs will be presenting the Subcommittees packages staff will roll out in the various areas. If there is a session at 10 o’clock, then obviously the Subcommittees will break at that time. Through the session, after the session Subcommittees will reconvene. Some Subcommittees always move faster than others, so it will be at the direction obviously of the Subcommittees Chairs. There will be opportunity obviously to purpose amendments to the Subcommittee package, to have votes on those amendments and then to the Subcommittees to vote out their packages. So, basically what we had hoped to get to tomorrow. We going through the budget, trying to make sure we got all of our T’s crossed and I’s dotted. We feel confident that we will be ready. Subcommittees feel confident that they will be ready Friday morning to conduct those meetings. That is what we anticipate. If you are on a Subcommittee obviously watch your e-mails for the notices that you will receive from your Subcommittees Chairs. Next week, just to give you a little bit of a preview. We anticipate the full appropriations committee on Tuesday. Everything will run with the same rules that we run with, and the rules that are reflected in the Rules of the House. And, hope to have the budget bill on the floor of the House next Wednesday and Thursday for action by the body. And, if anybody has any questions, come ask me later and I will be happy to talk to your. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Moffitt, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The Gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Speaker the House Finance Subcommittee on Occupancy Tax will meet in the morning in the room 415 at 8:30. We will be taking up House bill 493. The Robins Bill Occupancy Tax. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Cleveland, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Government Appropriations Committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow are cancelled. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentlemen is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is just a reminder that the county Karakul meets tomorrow morning. In our usual room 425. We will be looking at…

The issue of how the budgets are affecting counties. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative West, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The environmental committee will be tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, in room 544. We have an additional bill added to the agenda, Senate Bill 76, the Domestic Energy Jobs Act. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Warren, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The Government Committee will meet at 10 AM sharp in Room 643. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Millis, please state your purpose. Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Upon a personal privileged and announcement, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized on a point of personal privilege, and following that an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, i just wanted to thank all of your for receiving the Ladies of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Incorporated, who were here today for AKA day at the capital. They had good visits, and had some good feedback, and we appreciate you greeting them, and you listening to the concerns that the ladies had raised. We had about 300 ladies here from various chapters throughout our region, so I want to thank you for that. And then I want to announce, hopefully you have received some information from the legislative Black Caucasus Foundation about its scholarship event, which will be held on the 14 of February at the Research Triangle Park Sheraton. 14 of June, I'm sorry, at the Research Triangle Park at the Sheraton Imperial hotel. We have a full day of activities. You can still register if you'd like to attend. You can access our website at www.nclbcf.org, and we appreciate you attendance. We will be supporting as we have for a number of years, since 1986, 10 historically Black colleges and universities in North Carolina, supporting students, supporting needy students who deserve a college education. We appreciate your support. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker, thank you members of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Richardson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]A point of personal privilege please. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I would like to announce today that my seat mate's birthday is today. Happy Birthday. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Carney, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]A point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, several of you have inquired about Representative Tricia Cotham. I have been talking withe her routinely. She had quite an experience over the weekend, and she has been under doctor's care, is at home on bed rest, but is doing well, appreciates your prayers, your cards, and your flowers, and hopes to be back next week. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Holloway, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]A point of personal privilege please. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker. From an anonymous source, it has come to my knowledge that today may be my seat mate's birthday, and what's funny about this is all last session we had a discussion about how we would never be in session for our birthdays. I found out that his birthday may not be in September, it is in fact today, so if you will wish my seat mate, representative Nelson Dollar, a happy birthday. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Starnes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The Republicans will meet in caucus, 15 minutes after we adjourn but it will be in the other building in room 544. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further notices and announcements, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The House Committee on appropriations, Subcommittee on natural and economic resources will meet tomorrow at 8:30 at 424 LOB. House Bill 13, said agency property use, by in your report added conference committee member Carl Ford. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For a motion, plead [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn, to reconvene at noon on Thursday June 6th, 2013, subject to receipt of messages from the Senate, Committee reports, conference reports, the

referral bills and resolutions and modifications to the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Lewis and subject to the receipt of messages from the Senate, receipt of conference reports, committee reports, re-referral bills and resolutions and adjustments to the calendar that the House do now adjourn to reconvene on Thursday, June 6th at 12 PM. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House stands adjourned.