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 4, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The prayer will be offered by Rep. Dean Arp. Members and visitors in the gallery please stand, and please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you would like to join me in prayer. This is a prayer written by Pitts Baptist Sunday School Class 4A. Most gracious and merciful God, we recognize your authority and ownership overall creation and ask you, O Lord, to go before each one of here us today to give us wisdom and discernment to walk blameless in your sight. For You are El Roi, the God who sees. Thank You for bringing us blessings and liberties in this great state and burden us to not take this great gifts for granted. Allow us to recognize that true blessings, liberty and personal salvation come through Jesus Christ alone, by our intimate relationship with him. We pray for ourselves, the state policy makers in both houses of the General Assembly of North Carolina to have courage to stand firm in our personal faith and convictions and to not be persuaded by those with selfish interests. To seek Your wisdom in decision making and to remain humble with the powers entrusted to us. Help us to find ways to come together without compromising our faith and values. We bring each different ideas from all over the state, yet we seek to be unified. We pray for our state judges that they seek wisdom from You for decisions and rulings, and to exercise integrity while the laws that they have been entrusted to protect. And we pray for Gov. McCrory and Lt. Gov. Forest and their families. May they stay strong in their faith and stay strong in Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith. Give them guidance, wisdom and courage as they lead our state. May Your Church be strong, bearing in You much fruit. We know that without You we can do nothing. We pray for those who don't know salvation in You to come to understand that You, Lord, are the only way to God the Father. We thank You for the privilege to be here and for all You have given us. Watch over us. Guide us in our decisions on all the issues that come before us today. Make our hearts selfless, humble and open and our minds focused. Remind us that our decisions affect many people. And how, Lord, we stand before You humbled and seeking Your face. Please hear our prayer, Father. Forgive us our sins and fill this land ? . In the name of Your Son Jesus, Amen. [ANSWERS IN UNISON] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The journal for Monday, June 3, 2013, has been examined and found to be correct. I move its approval as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore moves that the journal for June 3 be approved as written. All those in favor say Aye. All opposed say No. The ayes have it. The journal's approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Petitions, memorials or papers addressed to the General Assembly of the House? Ratification of bills and resolutions: The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ? House: An Act to remove the restriction of Turnpike Authority's selection or record the location of the southeast ? Project of North Carolina ? the following bill ? of Secretary of State. Senate Bill 267: An Act representing Rowan county on parcels ? House Bill 545 ? act. House Bill 671: An Act removing certain proscribed property from the corporate limits of the Town of Mill River. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chapter bills be noted. [PAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Barbara Wilson and Tanner Payne? of ? Hospital Pre-School. Barbara Wilson is the mother of the Speaker's staff Emily Wilson. Please stand and let us welcome you. [APPLAUSE] [ENDS]

Ladies and gentlemen the Chair would also like to extend the courtesies of the gallery to a group of students here with teachers and chaperones. The chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to students, teachers and chaperones from Triangle Day School from Durham. Please stand and let us welcome you. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, as announced earlier, we attend to have session last about two hours, plus or minus a couple of minutes, but not much more. We are going to take up a bill that we have conferred with the Minority Caucus where there will be up to an hour and a half of debate. One hour of that debate will be allocated to the Minority Caucus. We will take that up probably after we get into maybe about 20 minutes of other bills before we move to that one. So without objection, the Chair will move ahead in the calendar, to the extent that we can. Perhaps for about 20 or 25 minutes dispose of some other bills. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion pertaining to today’s calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I would move that Senate Bill 325, Wake County School Board District, be removed from today’s calendar and calendar for tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. So ordered. Calendar Senate Bill 258 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 258, a bill to be entitled an act amending the charter of the City of Asheboro. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hurley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. This is a local bill that was requested by the City Council of Asheboro. I’d appreciate your support. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 258 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will out machine record the vote. One hundred and thirteen having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, Senate Bill 258 has passed its second reading without objection. It will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dockham, does the gentleman wish to be recorded as having voted aye on the second reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, yes please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman will be recorded as voting aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pierce please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? just missed it aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman will be recorded as voting aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 258 on its third reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 258 is passed on its third reading, and will be sent to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, shut that. Senate Bill 258 will be enrolled. Senate Bill 489 the clerk will read. Ladies and gentlemen that’s in the middle of the 2nd page of the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 489, a bill to be entitled 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. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, before the lady’s recognized to debate the bill, upon motion of members from Cumberland County, Lucas, Glazier, Floyd and Szoka, the Chair’s happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Mike Nagowski, Bredan Blackwell, and several health care professionals as from Cape Fear Valley Hospital in Cumberland County. Please stand and let us welcome you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I have just this second been informed that there is some… Can we temporarily displace this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senate Bill 489 will be temporarily displaced. Representative Fisher, please state your purpose. Senate Bill 129 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 129 a bill to be entitled an act to prohibit issuance of debt under the State Capital Facilities Finance Act. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Rayne Brown, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker…

The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill simply caps state special indebtedness to 25% of the total debts supported by the general fund. This bill's been a long time coming. I'd really appreciate your support. The State Treasurer has no problem with this bill. It received a unanimous vote in finance. Thank you very much for your support. Appreciate it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 129 on its 2nd reading. All in favor vote "aye", all opposed vote "no". The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. The clerk will have the machine record the vote. 115 having voted affirmative, none in the negative, the Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 129 has passed its 2nd reading without objection. Will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sheryl ?? 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 129 on its 3rd reading. All in favor say "aye", all opposed say "no". The "ayes" have it. Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 129 has passed its 3rd reading and will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Senate Bill 200, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 200 a bill has been ?? to extend the time for local forensic science labs to attain accreditation, ?? to North Carolina ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair observes that Representative Stam is out of the chamber. We will temporarily displace the Bill. Senate Bill 210 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 210. A bill has been ?? for the appointment of chief magistrates ?? North Carolina ?? [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 Mr. Speaker. ?? the house, all this does is authorize district court judges to allow, to be appointed a chief magistrate who will be the person in charge of handling scheduling. Lots of district court judges are already doing this but this just gives them the legal authority to do it. It does not provide addition money or funds, there's no pay raise, there's no physical impact. Simply allows them to do a practice they're already doing, and I would encourage your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 210 on its 2nd reading. All in favor vote "aye", all opposed vote "no". The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will have the machine record the vote. 116 having voted affirmative, none in the negative, Senate Bill 210 is passed its 2nd reading without objection, it will be read a 3rd time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Charles ?? of North Carolina ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 210 on its 3rd reading. All in favor say "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] "aye" [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say "no". The ayes have it, Senate Bill 210 has passed its third reading. It will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Senate Bill 22, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 222. A bill has been ?? an act to revise North Carolina Controlled Substance reporting systematic, as recommended by the child fidelity task force, General Simmons North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Horn please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 222 was designed to be the mirror of House Bill 173 which is a controlled substance reporting revisions controlled substance reporting to deal with prescription drug abuse. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. The gentleman please state the amendment number? [SPEAKER CHANGES] S222 , ATJ54 version 2. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will read,. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ATJ-54 v. 2. Representative Horn moves to amend the bill on page 3, line 32, by rewriting the line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. speaker, this amendment simply puts 222 to the exact wording of 173 which passed this House with all but one vote in favor. So, again, it's to deal with prescription drug abuse and I commend this amendment to your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth my Representative Horn for the Senate Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 222. All in favor vote "aye", all opposed vote "no". The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. Representative Hanes. The clerk will have the machine record the vote. 116 having voted affirmative, none in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Horn please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth the 2nd amendment.

Gentlemen recognize ?? 4th amendment. The clerk will read [SPEAKER CHANGES] this is amendment ATJ-56 V1 registered to inform most?? bill on Page 3 line 22 by rewriting the line to read[SPEAKER CHANGES] the gentlemen recognize the debate to the amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] the gentlemen [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker this amendment is what we call oops I forgot we forgot one piece of for 173 and 222 I then contacted all of the estate holders, retail merchants, pharmacists, sheriffs association FBI everybody make sure that I had this correct, understood it fully this simply is I should never say simply by in large this is a correction to the bill to just make sure that we get it right the first time instead of coming back next year and amending something we already done I support tremendous to your support [SPEAKER CHANGES]further discussion further debate if not, the question before the house is the passage to the amendment sent forth by representative Horn to the senate committee on the substitute bill 22 all in favor, we will vote aye all opposed will note the clerk will open the vote all members please record, the clerk will let the machine record the vote having 115 vote in the affirmative none in the negative amendment passes we're back on the bill Senator Horn please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] this is a bill to deal with reporting the distribution of controlled substance in order to deal with prescription drug abuse we now done it right and I urge your support on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]further discussion further debate on the bill is amended if not the question before the house is the passage of the civic committee substitute the senate bill 222 is amended on its 2nd reading all in favor, vote aye all opposed vote nay the clerk will open the vote the clerk will let the machine record the vote 115 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative the senate committee substitute the senate bill 222 is amended has pass its 2nd reading without objection will be read a third time [SPEAKER CHANGES] General??NC [SPEAKER CHANGES] further discussion further debate if not the question before the house is the passage of the senate committee substitute the senate bill 222 was amended on its third reading all in favor, say aye all opposed say no the ayes have it. the senate committee substitute for senate bill 222 is amended and passed it third reading the bill being gross and returned to the Senate

Clerk will open the vote. All members please record. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 116 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, The House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 239 has passed the 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 239 on its third reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 239 has passed its third reading, will be sent to ts. Senate Bill 252 The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 252 a bill to be entitled an act increase of criminal penalty for certain violations of the controlled substances act. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Horn please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is, excuse me it just took me a second to, to get, this act, this bill, increases, well just like it says, increases the penalties for, for violating prescription drug abuse issues as we just talked about a couple of minutes ago. Appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before The House is the passage of the Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 252 on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed to vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative and one in the negative, the Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 252 has passed its second reading and 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 Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 252 on its third reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The ayes have it. The Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 252 has passed its third reading, will be enrolled and sent to the governor. Senate Bill 279 The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 279 a bill to be entitled an act to update and clarify provisions of the laws governing estates, trusts, guardianships, powers of attorney and other fiduciaries. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of The House, this is another bar association bill that was put together by experts in this field, has been thoroughly vetted. I'll just hit the high points. One, one section would clarify that you can do notice to creditors without opening a formal estate. Another section would simplify and make more equitable the, the spouse's elective share in an estate. This bill also eliminates the current requirements for out of state wills or, or, it will permit out of state wills to be probated in North Carolina under certain conditions. It, it provides that a trust has an insurable interest in the life of the settler who created the trust. It defines the term settler spouse to be that spouse who was married at the time a trust was created and does certain other things too. If someone has questions I'll be glad to go through more details in the bill and I urge your support, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before The House is the passage of the Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 279 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. All members please record. All members please record. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 116 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative The Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 279 has passed its second reading. And 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 Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 279 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 279 has passed its third reading, will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 387 The Clerk will read.

two percent three eighty seven building, not to make technical performance majors pertaining to the renaming of the North Carolina art service and make other changes in the parser server statute sand to provide a right of entry or the Commissioner of agriculture to enforce the laws related to Betty Johnson of North Carolina enacts [SPEAKER CHANGES] President Ramsey placed nature, purpose of a suspiciously,they'll don't recognize the right bill of Mistress Baker, members of the house. Sacramento's of your support this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] this bill is a proposed ACS for Senate Bill three eighty seven. it would make technical changes to reflect the renaming of the visitor for services to draw for service modify the statute going standby duty for fire fighters, if the Commissioner of agriculture right of entry upon the premises were in for his necessary to reinforce the requirements of betting walls under the site statutes, which I did not know that the Commissioner of agriculture does regulate that I will think there are some provisions that you cannot remove the tag on your mattress also about one oh oh oh one you about that but the also found the technical provisions in this bill were similar. the House bill three sixty six, as introduced by Representatives Langdon Dixon Brisson and Martin and I may have support for the bill on any questions [SPEAKER CHANGES] you may have will try to answer those my discussion further tonight. if not a question of what houses the passage of the house committee substitute Senate Bill two eighty seven three eighty seven on its second reading on paper, but I'll is not known forappointment on the part lunching record about one hundred sixteen having that affirmative him vastly censor the Senate bill three seven 's best second reading without objection will be run through Tom Johnson of North Carolina are the discussion prototype, if not question White House is the bastard has present students and build three eighty seven on its third reading all favours a high of posing as avid asthey substitute the Senate bill three seven is passed its third reading bill be returned to the Senate, Senegal three ninety three for great Senate Bill three ninety three built without an act relating to limitations. actions on the ground constructed for all journals in the North Carolina president was pleased that your purpose to make Bill Simmons recognized right, Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you, Mister Speaker,members of the house. this is a very simple bill that simply makes clear in our law that the three-year statute of limitations applies the fraud applies to corrupt constructive fraud. also, it would correct a court decision or make clear that I may rule the came out of a court decision and put it in the statute. I urge your support. thank you presentable. I hope is that your purpose of simple admin, you don't frighten us and for the members are going to Larry Hall was Manville, page one, line sixteen, by adding the following immediately after the. in cases of protracted discovery shall be defined as actual discovery agent was recognizably imminent of the speaker, ladies and gentlemen, this is a technical amendment from the standpoint just clarifies that the discovery would be actual discovery, usually in the fiduciary relationship wherever the principal agent use would not hinder the rights of the DC area of so in this essence it would be a case of them have an actual knowledge before the statue limitations runs on the rights that would come from that. and so ashes and men are the discussed him him, if not request before the house is the passage of the members informed by revs and Larry Hall presented no three ninety three on a remote all."" what about the poor glut machine for the one hundred sixteen having that affirmative none of the negative member passes recycled bill version of Leslie Sager purpose. send forth an amendment to Jennifer doesn't want to remember the recording accident was listed in the bill on page one, line seventeen and eighteen by rewriting those lines to read sections of this act becomes effective October one two thousand and thirteen and applies to causes of action accruing on or after that date, the gel was recognized by a member. thank you, Mister Speaker, the amendments very self-explanatory, so I would

… move your option and urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendements set forth by Senator ?Blest? of Bill 393. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will now open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 116 having voted the affirmative, none in the negative, the amendment passes, we’re now back on the bill. Further discussion further debate. If not the question before the Senate is the passage of bill 393 as amended on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will now open the vote. All members please record. Representative ?Braughley?. 115 having voted affirmative, none in the negative, Sentate bill 393 is amended as pasSED its second reading and without objection, it will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?discussion of North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] further discussion further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of bill 393 as amended on its third reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no; the ayes have it. Senate bill 393 is amended as passed its third reading and will be returned to the Senate. Representative Moore, the chair understands that the gentleman wishes to be recorded as voting “aye” on the second reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes, Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman will be recorded as voting aye on the second reading of senate bill 393. Senate bill 489 the clerk will read. (other speaker) Senate joint resolution for…. (inaudible discussion) (other speaker) Ladies and gentlemen, it was properly read and it was temporarily displaced; the bill is now back before us. Representative (?Stan/Stein?) repeat your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the members of the House. This bill has been much discussed and I could discuss it for a long time, but after a lot of negotiation and consideration it received a unanimous recommendation as far as I could hear from the banking committee, and many of the people interested in it on both sides have either agreed to it or are neutral on it now, including as not opposed the north Climate Commander’s Council, the Commissioner of Banks, the Center for Responsible Lending, and the Justice Center. What it does is change the regulations of consumers… under the consumer finance act… in many ways, but primarily because it had been so long since the brackets to which interest rates applied for so many years, for so many decades, it changes those brackets really to allow lending up to $15,000. Setting the interest rates, of course higher for really small loans, moderately higher for those a little higher, and a flat 18% for those on loans above 10,000 up to 15,000. So they range from 30% up to 18%. But it does many other things, for example doubling the minimum loan term from six months to one year making it much more likely that loans will not go into default and extending the maximum term of loans from 7 up to 8 years. There does allow a modest late fee as is true in practically all other lending a $15 late fee that could be applied once to each payment that is there. But unlike most other lending there’s no attorney’s fees that you can get… maybe this is a (chuckles) defect in this bill… no attorney’s fees allowed. Mr. Speaker, when I first got into this a couple of years ago, I said well these rates that go from 30 to 18 are higher than I pay on my mortgage. And with the recent downturn in the economy 5 years ago interest rates plummeted and we have made a lot of changes in interest rates because those rates, you know, are there because of Federal Reserve policy and the effect is that people... and we made a lot of changes to regulations of rates in the 8 – 20% range making it almost impossible for people to get credit. I could recount some of things we did. But people can still get credit on credit cards, they can still go out and deal with the mafia, they can still do a lot of other things to get money…

like bounced checks. This is a responsible way to do installment lending that's been around for decades. It's safe and for the amount of loan involved it's affordable and reasonable. I'm gonna pass around - thorough the Sargent at Arms here - a discussion of micro lending. You know, sometimes the problem is insufficient credit and a fella has gotten even the Nobel prize - Muhammad Yunus - has gotten the Nobel Prize for sending out micro lending around the world. That is getting small loans to people who need some credit. And so, I researched that a little bit and discovered that the rates on those loans typically range from 30-70 percent. Now, representative Blackwell here would never dream of paying that on his house, and boat, and car because he can get that credit at three and four percent. but for people who cannot get credit otherwise lawfully, sometimes that is the very best choice. I'll be glad to answer questions after offering an amendment. I'd like to complement representative Larry Hall and representative Jordan for bringing a small amendment to my attention but which is important. It's not a technical amendment. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to offer an amendment and then discuss that. [speaker changes] The gentleman is recognized to send forth the amendment. The clerk will read. [speaker changes] Representative Stam moves to amend the Bill on page 6, Line 11 by rewriting the line to read ?? friends to any. [speaker changes] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment [speaker changes] Mr. Speaker, members of the house, if you're looking at page 6, line 11, it deletes the words acceptance provided in subdivision 6 of such section B of this section. So that sounds exciting but by taking it out we think we're giving more protection to those of the military rank of E4 and below. Now, first of all, I would like to say contrary to what I heard in committee, that the rank of E4 is not a low ranking person. I was an E4 and I rose to become the chairman of the head detail of a barracks of 200 men. Higher than I have got in here. I got to do the ??. E4 is a corporal. But anyway, there's special protections in here on pages 5 and 6 for those E4 and below and without this amendment, it was not clear that those members would have the broader protection that was available to everybody including those of E5 and above but also the general public. So, Mister Speaker, I move the adoption of the amendment. [speaker changes] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by representative Stam for the house committee senate substitute bill 489. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote No. The clerk will open the vote. [speaker changes] All members please record. Representative McNeill. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 114 having voted affirmative. 2 in the negative. The amendment passes. We are now back on the bill. Further discussion, further debate. Representative Baskerville please state your purpose. [speaker changes] No purpose. [speaker changes] Representative Fisher, please state your purpose. [speaker changes] To debate the bill-- [speaker changes] The lady is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [speaker canges] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman, lest you be lulled into inaction or a little bit of complacency by my colleague across the aisle. I wanted just to remind you of a bill that we dealt with last session and see if you think that it sounds similar at all to what we're dealing with today. We keep playing this game, and I like to call that game whack-a-mole, as you've heard me say before whack-a-mole with these consumer finance loans. Consumer finance bills. Last session in particular, we looked at a bill that, among other populations, would prey on military families. And now, we have another bill that is dressed differently with a little different bill number but I would submit that it looks like and walks like the bill that we defeated earlier. It is opposed by the Attorney General and those folks that you heard mentioned as sort of glossed over as supporting or neutral, most of them are --

Neutral, it's not that they support it at all but they are neutral. I can tell you that it is opposed by the Attorney General, by AARP as well as the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. And the reasons for their opposition makes sense. These loans are loaded with expensive credit insurance products, which by the way are sold to customers with great success but turn out to be the highest percentage of the money borrowed. The customer is often encouraged to flip or refinance these loans, and then lenders are trained in a advance that when the customer gets close to paying off the loan to hurry up and push a renewal to make it harder for the payoff of these loans to occur. These two issues alone would be enough to discourage the financially savvy from using this kind of loan alternative but there's more. These loans are expensive and even with the adjustments made in the earlier amendments that we know exist in this bill today, all that is saved by the customer in interest is a whopping $42.00 on average. What's more is that most people who borrow in this way borrow the smaller amounts and thus end up paying the higher interest rate. But wait! There's more. As the infomercial say, for example, by the time the consumer goes in to borrow, receives their payment schedule, purchases the insurance products being pushed by the lender, the amount that the consumer has left over to pay off his or her debt is a whopping 27 cents. There is so much wrong with these kinds of loan products that take advantage of the poor, the elderly, families that are already struggling. Not to mention that most of the profit that's realized by these companies don't even reside in North Carolina. Out of state companies control... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the good representative a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] When I am done I'll be happy to yield. Out of state companies control 69% of the consumer lending market. And I hope that you all will join with me in opposing this very troubling way to do business in North Carolina. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Szoka. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman, I'm gonna start with the bottom line upfront., I support this bill. I have five specific reasons why. As you may or may not know I'm retired military and the first reason is that this bill supposedly hurts our military. It does not hurt military. it has specific protections written into the bill top protect the military. For example for E4 and below, the first thing that a consumer finance company has to do is call that soldiers unit commander, their company commander or whoever else is in authority. So they're gonna be talking with a first Sargent or a captain who directly is concerned with that soldiers welfare. As a former company commander among other things I will tell you that if I got a call like that I would be grateful for that call and I would certainly talk to that young soldiers chain of command to make sure that he wasn't getting sucked into something that he shouldn't be into. I haven't seen in any other bill that we've passed here the consumer protections for soldiers that has been written into this bill. The second point I'd like to make is this bill is about consumer choice and it's about the availability of capital. I've had many conversations with you on a one to one basis about one of my pet peeves which is the availability of capital both for corporations and for consumers. We all have been through a great recession here, we know that. It's very difficult to get loans whether your a business whether you're trying to finance your house, or whether you're an individual who just rents. We still have needs though. Cars fail, they have to be fixed, we have to pay for our kids to go to college, there's a lot of different reasons. This is an avenue for people generally speaking with lower credit scores who gives them access to capital. And as long as we're talking about credit scores for just a minute let me remind those of you who might not know what it is, the official definition of a credit score form Equifax is it's a numerical score that is an indication of a consumers likelihood to repay a loan. Now this is [??] coaching to this discussion. If you have a credit sore of 700 or...

the odds are 577 to 1 that you will make a late payment on anything in the next 90 days, if you have a credit score of 630 the odds are 18 to 1, so the logic behind a lot of lending goes, the more likely you are to miss a payment in the next 90 days, the higher the risk is to the lender, therefor the higher the rate of return is to the lender because more people fail to make payments. it just makes sense, that's why some people with lower credit scores have higher rates on their cars, some people who are looking to qualify for mortgages can't qualify and some people who need access to capitol in situations like this, with lower credit scores have to pay a little bit more. Now the good part about this is, the consumer finance companies don't just go by credit score, they also go by the credit, so they look at the whole person when they are evaluating and when they're underwriting these files, in fact they turn down more of these loans than they actually accept. There is another option sometimes for people to get short term amounts of money and its credit cards, if you can qualify for a credit card, you can have whatever up to your limit is, the rates on those is significantly high, and there's no term for when you pay it back. When you get one of these consumer finance loans you can pay it back in 12, 24, 36 months. For people who might have difficulty with credit cards, this is actually a very good option because they can plan their budget knowing how much they have to pay every month, rather than having a credit card, where they start making minimum payments and get into all kinds of trouble. The last 15 years in which I've been involved in the mortgage business, I've looked at thousands of individuals credit reports. Now I'm not going to say I've never seen a credit report where somebody had a consumer loan and they didn't have a problem and I needed to recommend they give it to a bankruptcy attorneu, but I tell you the answer to people who have ran up their credit cards making minimum payments can really get in trouble, far, far, far outweighs those people I've seen who tend to like these consumer loans, so its a matter of consumer choice, its a matter of the availability of capitol, and really for these people its a choice. now its not our job to legislate the outcomes of peoples decisions, if people want to do this than we ought to let them do it in a way that we protect by sound laws which I think that this law is. There are other options for folks to get money, my good friend the representative valmor was asking me about this aggies son tv from western travel landing, APRs of over 500%. there are literally no consumer protections in that because some of these off shore lenders, if you will and some of these tribal lenders, they advertise on the internet. people go to the internet, they sign up for it and one of the first things you do on the internet is sign away all of your consumer protections, so there are other options, as representative Sam said the mafia might be one, however we are not in New York so I don't know if that's really true, in summery its consumer choice, its the good option for people where they can plan their own payments in advance, as far as the flipping goes, its not really flipping they may renew it. The additional products that they might choose to have some of these insurance products,in a lot of cases they don't have any insurance like you and I might have, health insurance, so it affords them a low cost option to have those things, while their being extended credit and protecting their family in the unlikely event that they die. I think its a good bill and I commend this bill to you speaker changes representative Goodman 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 want to make a quick point about credit insurance, while credit insurance is more expensive than traditional home owners or life insurance or disability insurance, a lot of consumers that take out these installment loans don't have this type of insurance and they really want these products. generally if they don't bomb and they have some sort of event, or fire, or a death, they go back to the lender and say "why didn't you sell me that product", i would also like to point out that's its made very clear to the person taking out the loan that they do not have to buy credit, life or disability, or property insurance on this product, so while they are a little more expensive than traditional insurance that people buy. a majority of the people who take these loans don't have these products so it does provide a benefit for them. One other quick point I want to make is that money is a commodity, and people when you want access to money you have to pay for it. It has been 30 years since these institutions have been able to increase what they charge even though their costs have gone up, none of us would ever

consider telling a Walmart, or a Best Buy or a Costco that they couldn’t raise their prices over thirty years so it’s only the commodity of money that we want to regulate to this degree and I commend the bill to you. [speaker change] Representative Collins please state your purpose [speaker change] briefly debate the bill [speaker change] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended [speaker change] Yeah, I just want to take, correct some revisionist history we have heard in here today. If this bill sounds familiar to you it should, and in 2011 we passed, the House passed house bill 810, we didn't defeat it. on a good bipartisan vote and I remember much bipartisan debate support for it just like we have here today. I remember standing up and basically saying what Representative Goodman just said about the fact that we're just kinda making up for inflation over last thirty years. I remember Representative Kelly Alexander standing up and saying much of what Representative Zoco did about the fact that it's easy for us here in this chamber who, you know, can go play banks off each other for a loan rate to tell other people who don't have those alternatives they shouldn't go get money somewhere and that this is basically their alternative other than, you know, Knuckles on the corner, to go get some money from. But anyway I just wanted to make sure we remembered that it was the Senate that sat on this bill, we passed this bill on a bipartisan vote back in 2011, I would suggest we pass it again. [speaker change] Mr. Speaker [speaker change] Representative Blust please state your purpose [speaker change] See if Representative Collins will yield for a question [speaker change] Representative Collins, does the gentleman yield? [speaker change] With great trepidation [speaker change] The gentleman yields [Speaker change] Representative Collins, what was the interest rate environment thirty years ago versus today? What would have been the cost of funds for a lender versus what it is today? [Speaker change] Thirty years ago, we're talking 1983; the rates would've been considerably higher than they are today. [Speaker change] Further discussion, further debate? if not, the question before the house is the passage of the House committee substitute to Senate bill 489 as amended 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. 74 having voted in the affirmative, 42 in the negative, the house substitute to Senate bill 489 as amended has passed in second reading without objection [Speaker change] Objection [speaker change] Objection having been raised, the bill remains on the calendar. Senate bill 306 the clerk will read [speaker change] House committee substitute for Senate bill 306 bill entitled elect to exclude the administration of lethal injection from the practice of medicine to codify the law that prohibits regulatory boards from sanctioning health care professionals for assisting in execution process. To amend the law on the administration of lethally injection, to require the setting of an execution date, if any of the events which are provided by the statute have occurred. 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-convictions capital cases General Assembly of North Carolina enacts [Speaker change] Representative Stam, please state your purpose [Speaker change] To speak on the bill [Speaker change] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill [Speaker change] Mr. Speaker and members of the house, for many of you this will be the fifth time that you have debated this, not including second and third readings as more than one time. If you've been on the relevant committees it may have been ten or twelve times. And so I'm tempted to say very little and just vote but I realize that a large proportion of this house is new. You're not new to the public debate that has occurred in the, your communities, but you may be new to the legal debate. So I will say something about it. It's very, very serious. I’m passing around two pages of excerpts from debates that we've had in the past in 2009, 2011 and 2012, and I'll come to that at the end, but it will be coming to you. And what it addresses is a phenomena that we had a couple years ago and even last week. And that is people who support the so-called racial justice act, but had no idea that it could be applied or relief could be sought by, for example a white defendant who killed a white person, tried by a white judge and a white jury and claim that he or she was discriminated against on the basis of race. That's what this bill does among other, I mean that's what the underlying bill we want to repeal does whether you believe it or not.

That's true. I'd like to got through the bill with you, because it does some other things other that repeal, although I expect most of the debate to occur on that repeal. The first section allows doctors, nurses, pharmacist to participate in executions, in other words, do their job without fear of professional retribution. In 2007, the Medical Board issued a statement prohibiting doctors from participating in executions, even though state law required a doctor to be there. The North High Supreme Court later ruled that the board could not punish doctors for doing that, and this section codifies that decision. Section 2 directs the Attorney General to notify the Department of Public Safety when legal appeals are exhausted for a particular case and then directs the Department of Public Safety to ensure the protocols provide the assembly with periodic updates with what's happening with these 150 or so appeals that have been wandering around in the appellate courts for 15, 20, 25 years. Section 5A repeals the so called Racial Justice Act, while reaffirming in Section 5, the multiple avenues of appeal available to ensure a fair hearing in any case where there's actual discrimination based on race. And so I don't have to jump up and down every time someone claims that there's no remedy if there's actual racial discrimination, all I'll do is I'll just hold up my hand, it'll say 5, and 5 means Section 5B, read Section 5B, you'll see it there. No one wants actual racial discrimination, what we don't want also, is for race to be used as a pretext in order to stop the death penalty which has been the public policy of this state for those who have committed deliberate premeditated murder under aggravating circumstances. When the Racial Justice Act was passed in 2009, it effectively imposed a 4 to 6 year moratorium on the death penalty, I prophesied a 3 or 4 years, I was wrong, by allowing all death row inmates at the time to claim they were racially discriminated against. As I said, even white criminals claimed racial discrimination. I think there where 156 inmates at that time, 152 of them made these claims, and I guess the other 4 are just volunteers who wanted to be executed. The reason for this is it allows murderers to seek relief by proving that someone else was discriminated against in another time, another place, another decade, another county. And as I say, almost all murderers sought relief. Why does this matter? I've shown this book before, this is probably the 5th time I've shown this book. It's 28 studies furnished to me by the Attorney General's office which demonstrates that there's statistically significant deterrent effect of having the death penalty, on whether or not you have additional homicides. And a rough count, a rough count of the people who have now died in North Carolina, innocent people who've died in North Carolina, a majority of whom are African Americans, because of this moratorium, would be approximately the number of people seated here and the number of people filling the galleries. That's been the human cost of this so-called Racial Justice Act. Let me go to the paper I passed out, the 2 page piece of paper there, I not going to read the whole thing. I could quote myself, but that's boring even to me. In the debate on the 2009 act before it when into effect, what's underlined there, is we told them, this allows every person of the 163 murderers currently on death row to make this claim. Every one of them has had the right to make the claim that racial prejudice was exhibited against them for the last 8 to 15 years they've been on death row. In other words, before this act went into effect, the typical murderer had 8 to 15 years

on death row if they ended up being executed. In a case reviewed by 45 judges. What the Racial Justice Act did was add six years approximately so that becomes then 14 to 21 years and instead of 45 judges, 53 judges. How many judges is enough? It was easy to tell from the bill itself why this would happen. They got an immediate one year stay because they had a year to make their motion and now they've been in litigation on those motions for I believe about three years now. If they're African American they claim it's disproportionality according to population. If not, they'll claim disproportionality in other ways. ??? Bill, the prosecutor in Gaston County told us in Committee and in paper that one of the ironies of the bill is that it will make seeking the death penalty almost impossible. Of all the defendants in Gaston County on death row, only one is black. All the rest are white men. I have two pending capital cases both involving white defendants. In order to prosecute more white men capitally I'm going to have to first get some death sentences imposed on some black men. That's the way the bill will work if we're foolish enough to pass it. Quotas on the death penalty. And then in the debate in 2011 when we knew what had happened, we explained again that this was not about actual racial discrimination but rather discrimination proved that somebody else did it in somebody else's cases and somebody else's time. Well we weren't able to get an override of the Governor's veto in 2011 but in 2012 we did and I have a short excerpt from that. Another proponent was quoted publicly, I think that was Representative Womble, saying he didn't understand that white defendants could use it if they murdered white people or of the same race or had the same race of jurors. But it has all of those effects. It is probably one of the most foolish laws we ever passed and if you would look at Section 5b. of the bill you will see that even after, this is on page 4, lines beginning at 44, upon repeal, that's when we pass this law, a capital defendant retains all of the rights which the State and Federal Constitutions provide to ensure that the prosecutors who selected a jury who sought a capital conviction did not do so on the basis of race, that the jury that hears his or her case is impartial and that the trial was free from prejudicial error of any kind. These rights are protected through multiple avenues of appeal, habeas corpus, motions for appropriate relief, and we don't need this extraneous act which is unique in the nation. They'll try to tell you that Kentucky has a similar law and I'll explain why Kentucky's is completely different if that comes up. But remember this. Every time you hear that this law is necessary to ensure that we are free from racial discrimination I'm going to hold up my hand here, it's going to say 5b. and I'll want you to go look at page 4, those lines, and you'll see that that is not so. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, we have two groups to recognize. First upon motion of Representative Linda Johnson from Cabarrus County, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies to students of the Community College System Student Leadership Development Program and then we also have a school group with us, two groups from Briar Creek Elementary School in Thomasville. Please stand and let us welcome you. Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members,

My son is much smarter than his dad, so I- and he studied the RJA as we were going through this in college and in grad school. So I called him and asked if he would play Devil's Advocate with me as I defended the act while he gave the arguments against it. And the conversation went a bit like this: Phillip said "Dad, isn't the RJA designed to answer whether anyone on death row was sentenced to death due to a significant reason that it was the color of their skin?" And I said "That's right, son." And he said "Dad, didn't the act allow overwhelming statistics of discrimination to show patterns of discrimination just like we do in civil cases?" "Yup." "And Dad, didn't the original act require an outside university, with no ties to North Carolina to look at two decades of cases and present their findings wherever that mass of evidence led?" "Absolutely." "It was Michigan State, wasn't it dad?" "Go Spartans," said I. "That study, dad, said Philip found in jury selection that the prosecution struck over two times as many qualified black jurors as white jurors in those two decades of cases. And in fact, over 40% of those on death row had all white juries or just one minority juror on that jury?" "Yes," said I, "but son, you have to know that wasn't a North Carolina study, and you have to remember it was done out of state." "Well dad, the study was peer reviewed, wasn't it?" "Yep." "And it had the same findings as the Carolina study done by professors at the University two years prior, with a smaller number of cases." "Yep." "And its authors were nationally acclaimed?" "That's true." "And it was introduced into evidence at the first RJA trial, and the judge found it valid and credible and statistically unassailable?" "That's true." "But you gotta remember son," say I, "as one Senator said in this debate on this bill on the Senate floor about five weeks ago, 'The judge that tried that RJA case was black. And probably biased.'" "I see," said my son. "So Judge Weeks, that same judge that's on the Law faculty at Carolina and Central and Duke and Carolina?" "Yeah, that's the one." "And he's been on the bench twenty years?" "Yes he has." "And he has one of the lowest reversal rates in the state over those twenty years?" "Yes he does." "And he was asked by the Chief Justice to be the specific judge to try the murder of Michael Jordan's father?" "He was." "And he's handed down death sentences in cases as a trial judge, including one of yours, dad, isn't that the case?" And I said, "Yes he did. And we're not gonna talk about that." "But the Senator still said he was biased because he was black? Dad, do you think if Judge Ammonds or Judge Don Stevens out of Wake County tried the case, that that Senator would have said they were biased because they were white?" "No son, that would be discriminatory, wouldn't it?" "Oh, I see," said Philip. "Well dad, since the RJA passed there've been several trials." "That's true." "And in the first trial, didn't Judge Weeks find overwhelming evidence that discrimination in Cumberland county in jury selection occurred where he said there was very powerful evidence race was a significant factor in the exercise of pre-emptory jury strikes in Cumberland county, and he found evidence that North Carolina prosecutors 'systemically' quote, 'engaged in training from 1995 til 2011, not in how to comply with the Batson decision prohibiting race as part of jury strikes, but in how to circumvent it. And didn't he find that race was a materially, practically, and statistically significant factor in jury selection in these cases for 20 years in North Carolina, in the second judicial division, and in Cumberland county?" "Yes he did, son. But some of that evidence was contradicted at trial." "Well," Philip said, "by another study?" "Well not exactly, the state had a partial study but they said they didn't have time to complete the study." "But Michigan State did?" said my son, and I said "Yes." He said "Well who then contradicted it?" I said "The prosecutors who tried those cases said that they didn't make their strikes based on their race, and they should have been believed." And my son said, "Well kind of like when the defendant says he didn't do it, they should be believed?" And I said "Well not exactly, there's a difference." "Well aren't they both self-serving?" "Well maybe.

are made by officer the state and the other is facing a penalty. I was at my son well. the other thing I said is remember who has the burden of proof. if the defendant state authority found guilty, but then has to prove that there was racier. most of my son, so the state controls all the records of their own jury selection, and they control those records on trial and on appeal and they don't have to disclose their jury records to anybody but the defendant has to prove that those dreary records show discrimination. now you're getting it. Philip was in a great state didn't judge weeks in the expert statistician from Michigan State on the probability that racial disparities like he found occurring in these cases that they would occur in a racially neutral process would be less than one in ten trillion square. yes, that's on you know what Mark Twain said about statistics, statistics and statistics, and lots and remember also saw that the Supreme Court of McCleskey versus Glenn said statistic should never be enough to prove race discrimination in capital cases that set myself in Justice Powell, who wrote that opinion before he died. states of the New York Times that he wished the one where she had was that it loaded differently in that case an idiot come to the conclusion it was the biggest mistake ever made on the Supreme Court of that's true son. but you got remember judges never make mistakes, because did that for posterity owes that fill recalling the Dred Scott opinions Cora Moxie and Plessy versus Ferguson and remember Philip were talking about RJ, we repealed that last year the now statistical evidence can only be used as background evidence, not dis positive. it has to be geographically limited and time-limited and racial discrimination can only be proven by real anecdotal evidence of rates. I see said Philip and judgments just told the second trial after that. and after a long opinion, in which both sides not to put on all their evidence and cross examine their witnesses and make full arguments and to define this time a few months ago, even more evidence this time in the prosecutor 's own notes of racial bias in jury selection left with the order said son judges make mistakes without it, you just submitted it to the judges never make mistakes built in memory like her mother, two points. my son first judge week 's decision was just about Cumberland County, and that's on appeal and ask not affected by this order will know whether Judge Weise was right or not. after that appeal that this new act is now stop that from happening in any other camp, so want find out what happened in Cumberland County, really. I ceased to fill, so it's okay for Cumberland County defendants to have the opportunity to prove that their trials were racially tainted by race-based jury selection, but now won't be okay for anyone else in the state to have the same opportunity. what exactly do you call that that uniform system of justice of general corpses on and then there was the second point is that this representative Stan says creates a very long process. it delays executions beside the defendant can always prove race discrimination at trial are you on motions for appropriate relief.all those live finger nothingness representative stands talking about that, let me ask you that you think it's worth the time to get an answer to the most pressing and divisive issue of race in death penalty cases. it existed in the criminal justice system for generation and the truth of my leases rapid North Carolina Supreme Court, and should that would decide those cases. once they do,which should be within the next year. all of the other cases will then fall very quickly. one way or the other, and in the true dad don't think that the prosecutors now have the ability and have always had the ability to move to dismiss RJ appeals that are frivolous and isn't it possible that the other judges like Judge Weeks and other places might find them recently. the significant role in jury

Representative: JA was designed to ferret out and stop now and forever race discrimination in jury selection and isn’t time, if the repeal is done, isn’t it true that we will never, ever get the final answer that we have now spent all this time and money and emotion in trying to find. Wouldn’t we want to remember that over the last 12 years there have been three innocent people released from death row in NC after they were convicted by a jury, had their appeal upheld by the courts, lost their motions for appropriate relief, lost their federal [xx] petitions, and all those wonderful things that Representative Dann’s figure has raised. Well son, those are all great questions. The witness’ family needs finality, the system needs finality. [xx] always taught me that nothing is ever settled until it is settled right, didn’t you? Yes I did. Here we are talking about life and death, and race and prejudice. Aren’t we Dad? Shouldn’t we take time and money to get it right for future generations? That maybe true son. Dad, I have just one last question for you. If all this evidence could have been uncovered at people’s trials, and appeals, and mar’s, habius, and we have had great lawyers trying those cases, why did it never happen? Why did it take RJ to find out about all that evidence? Well son, there really is a good answer to this. The prosecutor’s notes on jury selections and trial strategy are protected. Lawyers have to be able to write down their thoughts, opinions, strategy and innermost thoughts free from the belief that someone will then get to review them. So, said Phillip, the RJ is the first time those notes were made available. Basically that is true, but dad, if that is true, then wasn’t that the first time that these things were uncovered? For example, he said, that Kenneth Rouse had an all white jury because the prosecutor dismissed everyone of color who were qualified for the jury? One of the jurors who sentenced to death admitted that he lied to be on the jury – that juror’s mother was sexually assaulted and murdered, and that juror deliberately concealed that fact from the judge, the prosecutors and the defense attorneys, and he admitted it after trial, “black men rape white women so that they can brag to their families.” “That blacks don’t care about living as much as whites,” and referred to African Americans routinely as “niggers.” That bigotry influenced his decision to vote for death, isn’t that true dad? Well it is. Isn’t it true that the courts never meaningfully considered that claim but would have to under the justice in deliberation act. How about Qunitel Augustine who was convicted by an all white jury and their unsigned, hand written notes, turned over many years ago, that said, “jury strike list,” on it. That had things on them like, “this juror is from a respectable black family, “ “this juror is a black wino,” or “a white juror as a trafficking marijuana potboat earlier in the 80’s, but a fine guy.” Those notes, and many like them, were never uncovered. His lawyers never had access to them before RJA. We look through the RJA discovery that prosecutors were trained, in this state, how to avoid bats and through cheat sheets, which we will talk about later. That is true. Isn’t it true dad that we learned in 1995, in a case called State versus Pervet, that the prosecutor struck an African American member in the jury because he was a veteran in the U.S. Army but then kept white [xx]? That is true. Didn’t we learn in another case called State versus Dibidough that struck a black member because he answered questions, “yeah,” instead of “yes,” six times? Isn’t it true that in a note from another case that he struck an African American because he did feel like a victim even though he had his car broken into one time? Yeah, and many more. Well, said my son, what do you say about that? Well, I said, they were great notes: clear and specific, good grammar and syntax on those notes. All told that they were great notes. The jury

Judges didn’t get to see them, said my son. And no I said. And, sometimes, lawyers, like people, write down things they don’t mean. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman time is expired. If you would like to be recognized for a second time, you may be and have five additional minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Recognize for a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’ll state based on what the speaker’s intentions. There is I believe 45 minutes left for the minority to speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. I will be finishing in about 3-4 minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Blust, please state your purpose… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will the gentleman yield for a question since he was interrupted? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Glazier do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman does not yield. Rep. Glazier you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Remember sometimes son, lawyers write things down by mistake. So, he said, the DA’s that wrote on those notes black wino strike’em might really have meant white and sober? Well, not exactly son. Or, maybe when they wrote black, bad neighborhood, they meant white good neighborhood. No, son. So, dad let me ask you, finally. If this RJAA is repealed, it’s going to be repealed despite a UNC study showing racial prejudice in jury selection in North Carolina? And, a one million dollar Michigan State study that say the odds again race discrimination having occurred fortuitously is one to ten trillion squared? And, two court decisions headed to the Supreme Court with detailed findings by a respected judge holding the study to be valid and findings give massive anecdotal evidence from pages of prosecutors notes that race played a significant factor in those cases? And, cases pending in courts around the state that would be stopped? And the North Carolina Supreme Court hasn’t even had time to rule on the first two cases, but if they did they would establish the law for the state if we let them do it? And, all the rest of the cases would resolved and now we will never know whether race played a part or didn’t play a part in those cases. Is that true? And, I said yes. He said, well dad, what exactly do you call this system? And I said equal justice under the law son. We’re very proud of it here in North Carolina. For the reasons my son articulated more eloquently than I, and the many inconvenient truths he’s highlighted, this should resolve our decision today. We can no more pretend that we have completely escaped the grip of a historical legacy spanning centuries as a society and the prosecutor and defense lawyers who tried these cases could rise above the legal culture of that same society in which they operated and were trained. We remain in prison by the past as long as we continue to deny its existence. If instead of accepting the consequences of what we did, and hoping and ensuring it never happens again, we simply bury the evidence. In a Hogan’s Hero like, Sgt. Schultz “I see nothing I know nothing I hear nothing” routine. We will never again have the confidence of our full society and the fairness and accuracy of the criminal justice system. And more importantly, in the truth of equal justice under the law. We will not on this floor be remembered for most decisions we ever passed. Unemployment changes, tax reform changes, employment security changes, but every once in awhile in a generation when you’re a legislator, you will cast a vote for which history will remember you. I know you came to this floor many of you from caucuses we did. And, have a set view perhaps when coming in. But, what we do today goes way past our caucuses and our ideology, and our political obligations. We decide here today, a matter of life and death. Whether we leave ragged questions unanswered about our own history, or whether we leave together confidently to heal all those wounds. We decide today a case, an issue, about the soul of the state. We have an opportunity to that generations have asked for to resolve the issue of race discrimination in the criminal justice system. Fundamentally, that decision is up to each of you. And for me, I will be voting to give the courts a chance to answer. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stevens, please state your purpose….

Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman of The House. I too have been involved with the racial justice act since it inception. I was in two of the initial committees that heard the initial racial justice bill. And as an attorney I saw it fraught with all kinds of problems and concerns. I will tell you about the first, and it was a pre-trial motion, the first racial justice act case motion that was heard in my district. A man, a young man, fleeing from a murder in South Carolina came through my county. Stopped at an over, rest, rest area. Climbed the fence and went into a house and killed two people. Just to get their car and a little bit of money. They didn't know him. It didn't matter. He didn't care who his victims were. Should racial justice apply to him? Oh yea, I forgot to tell ya, he's white. And so were the victims. But he got to claim under the racial justice act. He got to not have it considered on the facts of the case. And that's the biggest thing about the racial justice act. It doesn't matter what the underlying facts are, it doesn't matter how many offenses this person has done in their own life. Everything we've ever learned about criminal justice is we judge the person based upon their prior record, their prior acts in terms of sentencing. We look at the actual crime they did. Was it heinous? Was it in the commission of another felony? There are very specific facts to get the death penalty. And there is not a person on death row that the jury has not found that they had prior criminal histories, multiple prior criminal histories, that the crime they committed was especially heinous. To me, race doesn't and shouldn't matter. The facts of the case should matter. Now I sat in on some interim study committees with racial justice and, and listened to some of the facts and statistics. And what I heard was we're looking at jury selection only from the perspective of the prosecutor. We're not looking at final jury composition. And I've been told that's racially consistent when you get to the end. It's racially consistent with makeup of the general population. So we're only looking at it from the prosecutor's perspective. Now as we talk about the trial in Cumberland County that went on. Guess what. The trial judge who tried him initially wanted to take the stand and testify about any or, any type of racial prejudice he saw and he was not allowed to even though the original bill allowed that. Now rep Glazier said he'd like to see this go on up to the Supreme Court. But if it goes up to the Supreme Court its going up under the old law. Which said if there were a racial, racial justice problem, factually or statistically, 15, 20 years ago in one area of the state, it could be used to apply to the entire state, it could be used to apply to the entire state. I too had some discussions with my daughter about racial justice. She was taking an African-American studies class at University of Tennessee. She wanted to ask me a lot more questions about racial justice. and every time I tried to explain to her that we're gonna try a criminal case based on statistics she kept going that doesn't make sense. Why are you using statistics? Why don't the facts of the case matter? We, we were told about cases in these committees where one person tied up another one, and then taped his face completely with the thick packing tape and left him to die. Now for us did that matter what his race was? Did it matter what the person who committed the crime was? A cruel and heinous left to die and suffocate for the want of a hundred dollars. Look at the facts underlying a case. The true intent of the initial racial justice act as was to end the death penalty. Was to end the death penalty. To put a moratorium on it. Ladies and gentleman we don't need the racial justice act as Representative Glazier indicated. We've had ?? challenges where you can challenge about racial motivations in jurors. There are other things that if you can show the kind of prejudices like he was showing, we, we had one in our area in which the diner, in a, in a dining area, was overheard to be using racial slurs. And that stopped the entire jury and went for a mistrial. We have the abilities in place. If there's specific areas of the.

?? where we are having this kind of problem. We need to focus on tackling the problem. Not letting murderers get off. We either have the actual vote and speech on doing away with the death penalty, or we don't. But this is not the way to go about it. I just jotted down some notes cause I wasn't expecting to stand up, but to me, we need to look at all death penalty cases under the specific facts. If you really wanted to sort of do away with any kind of prejudices at all you have a jury picked at random. You find the facts without them even seeing the witnesses. And then you put it in a computer, and let the computer decide. That makes more sense than what we're doing. But, we do not need this race on justice act. It has created nothing but a delay in the system. A tremendous amount of cost that were understated grossly by our physical research department. It has been used and abused to delay trials, and to try to effectively end the death penalty. So I would ask you to support this review. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house. I'm not as eloquent as my seatmate across the aisle here, but I do want to point out the need for the racial justice act, and why this bill is so wrong headed. We know that our country has had a long history of racial discrimination in our court system, especially in jury selection. It dates back 2 centuries. We've had multiple efforts to address it, in 19th century congressional acts, and U.S. supreme court decisions, and the 20th century, and even more recently. The supreme court confirmed to ?? that racism in our country is a problem, and that states need to figure out a way to address it at the state level. Which is what we had done with "RJA". In the recent rulings on "RJA", judge Weeks found the intentional racial discrimination throughout our court system. Studies as Representative ?? has pointed out, studies have shown that in North Carolina qualified black jurors have been struck 2 and a half to 3 times as often as qualified white jurors. And that 40 percent of defendants on death row have been sentenced to death by a jury that was either all white, or had only one person of color on the jury. This is clearly a problem, and this is one of the many that "RJA" was meant to address. U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Batson versus Kentucky, that qualified jurors cannot be struck based on race alone. And it's been stated by others, ?? Representative Stam, and Stevens, that Batson provides sufficient protections, to ensure that race doesn't play a role in our criminal justice system. But all a prosecutor needs to do to comply with the ruling, is to offer a race neutral reason for striking the juror. And it's because of the "RJA" litigation, we found out through the discovery, that instead of complying with Batson, the conference of DA's has provided DA's with cheat sheets on how to get around Batson. It was in the evidence, these cheat sheets. They reference items such as inappropriate dress, physical appearance, age, attitude. These are ways the DA's got around the Batson restriction. The conference of DA's held what they called top gun trainings, in which one page of cheat sheets listing these race neutral reasons a prosecutor could use in a Batson objection in striking a black juror. So rather than being trained how to comply with the law, this demonstrates a calculated, and largely successful effort to circumvent Batson. And the Racial Justice Act cases heard thus far, the courts have found that DA's across the state have relied on this training handout to avoid Batson's mandate, resulting in racial discrimination in juror selection. It's clearly a problem. Additional evidence as Representative Glazier pointed out, in the Cumberland county cases are the notes, these prosecutors notes that were written in the juror's strikes. And that's very troubling, you've got a Assistant DA whose writing comments like black wino on drugs, and a respectful black family but when inquired by the judge the prosecutor did not have a similar comment on a white family. In contrast to the black wino, you've got a white country boy that drinks, but he's okay. We never would have known about this if it were not for the "RJA" litigation. There is no other mechanism in the law for finding this out, because many of the defendants have exhausted their appeals, and there is no other way to introduce this evidence. This is another important reason why we should not be repealing this statute.

Just this week Judge Weekes/g said in his ruling, most recent ruling, quote, I had hoped that acknowledgment of the ugly truth of racial discrimination revealed that defendants evidence in RJA cases around the state would be a first step in creating a system of justice that is free from the pernicious influence of race, a system that truly lives up to our equal I feel unequal justice under the law. This will not happen if we repea, repea, if we pass Senate bill 306. When decisions are being made based on the color of one’s sin, one’s skin justice is not being served. I urge you to vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will Representative Harrison yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] [CROSSTALK] Do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] [CROSSTALK] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison assuming just for the sake of argument that there’s been racial discrimination in the selection of a particular jury. What? Why should the defendant get life in prison without parole which is what the Racial Justice Act calls for? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I, I’m not an expert in this area of criminal law. But it’s my understanding that you want a jury that represents the diversity of the community and also a jury of one’s peer. And when that jury does not reflect that diversity you don’t get fair rulings from the jury. And that’s that’s my understanding of it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, second question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Here’s my question. You have this bad jury why should the defendant who had this bad jury and we know, we know he’s a murderer because they, none of them have raised the claim of innocence. Why should he get life in prison without parole if this prejudiced jury tried his case? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I could I, I believe that the point is is that you wanna process that’s transparent and fair. And if you have jury that’s issuing these decisions it’s not a fairly composed jury that there is some lack of confidence in the system in the ruling from the jury. I guess that’s my answer. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members at this time we have six members of the minority party that are, are still in the queue to speak. And there’s 36 minutes left for the minority side. So that’s six minutes apiece. Nobody’s going to be cut off from debate. But at the six minute mark, just if we want to split the time up among the six that are left, I’ll hit the bell. You can continue to speak and eat up others times. But just to make sure that every member has an opportunity to speak, we wanna make sure that is, that they are aware as they are speaking. So at this time, Representative Daughtry please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Hearing Representative Glazier’s remarks is very troubling to me to hear about our court system. And the way he described as DAs that were, I would say even crooked, judges that were biased. I’ve been going around the courts in this state for over 40 years. And I don’t know that I’m in the same country that he’s in. I don’t see what he sees. I see a place where people are doing the best they can do in an institution to provide justice for all. I’ve also been around here a long time. And this debate is not about racial discrimination. It never has been. It’s about the death penalty. That’s what we’re debating. Five or six years ago we were here and we didn’t have lethal injection because we couldn’t get a doctor to give the injection for fear of losing their license. So we did not have the death penalty carried out since 2006. And this is a continuation of us not having the death penalty. I don’t know about you but my district, my constituents favor the death penalty. They believe that when crimes are committed that are so egregious and so horrible that the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty. You may think otherwise in your district. You may think that the best approach would life in prison. But I, I submit to you the thing for you to do is run a bill to decide whether or not we should end the death penalty, or whether we should continue the death penalty. Because right now we’re doing this side attack, this end run. We haven’t had a death penalty in 2006. We’ve had people on death row since 1985. We ought to have justice that’s swift and sure. But the way we’re trying to do this is to put people in prison for their life as Representative Stam said and not

[SPEAKER CHANGES] not give them a lethal injection. I don't understand the kind of court that I've been hearing described over here. It's not the way we hae a court system. And we have some of the finest lawyers. We have specialists who defend those people who have been convicted and received the death penalty. It's a cottage where people go and they defend the death penalty in Supreme Court. We the Commission of Actual Innocence in our state. We have motions of appropriate relief. I think our court system is the finest in the world, and I think the attacks on our court system is wrong. And I don't anybody should prouder of what we've done to protect our citizens and at the same time protect the defendants than we've done. I hope you'll support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentleman of the House, you know I don't try to get up and become an edifier of anything. I try to be plain and true. Rep. Daughtry, it's unfortunate that you haven't walked in my shoes or the shoes of any other black person in the state when you were convicted because you were black. I've had to defend that. I've walked in the courtroom, and the judge looked at me, said I had law book in my hand, and said "Boy, what'chu doing with that book? It ain't gonna do you no good. I'm the law here." Now that's fact. That has happened, so when you walk in my shoes, then you will understand what's happening here. Now there other thing is that this bill -- the Racial Justice Act is not about the death penalty. It is about an individual getting a trial free from any prejudice at all, and when you knock out jurors because you think they have a prejudice in favor of the defendant or that they would be more in favor of the prosecution side, that discrimination in picking a jury. Judge Weeks, I think, did a great job. He didn't use the statistics that everybody says that this thing used from out of state. He used what he call this: "defendants presented a wealth of case, anecdotal and historical evidence of racial bias in jury selection." And he was talking about Cumberland county, but it affected every other county in the state because there was other anecdotal evidence from other counties also. The case is now before the Supreme Court. It's been appealed, and they're in the process of making a decision on that, and we ought to let them go ahead and make the decision on that. But, as I said before, this is not about the death penalty. It's not about the heinous act or anything like that. These persons have been convicted and were given the death penalty. That's not a get-out-jail pass. It's simply stating that simply because you have a jury that was not of your peers, that there was racial prejudice involved in the picking of that jury, that you were guilty of the crime, but instead of putting you to death, you're gonna be put in prison for the rest of your life. And to some that may be more -- Some folks wish for death more than having to spend life in prison. The other thing is that some folks have said that this adds time to the people who are on death row. That does not have to be true. There are things that a district attorney can in order to shorten that time. A motion to dismiss, a motion for appropriate relief. I asked one district attorney this when it was in committee, and he said, "Yes, I have filed a motion, but it's not going to be till 2015 before we hear it. Well, there are several things there: Number One is that he can ask for an expedited hearing, and I have not appeared in a court yet when and expedited hearing was asked for and wasn't given. So that means you don't have to have the extra time in there that's involved. The second thing is that has been said is: Well, if you got a white-on-white case that you can't show racial prejudice in the picking of a jury. Well, as Rep. [CUTS OFF]

?? is, I have a little bit of faith, fortunately, in the justice system, and I believe that those claims that are frivolous will be thrown out in a matter of a few days if the district attorney asks for it to be done. There's just so many ways to do this, but the bottom line, my friends, is there should be no prejudice of any kind in the picking of a jury that's going to impact your life or anybody else's life. There are scare tactics used in here. They bring in pictures of these heinous crimes and whatnot. These people have been convicted. They've already been convicted. They don't get out of jail because of this. But there should have been no racial prejudice shown in the picking of that jury. And that's what has been shown in this instance. I'm simply asking that let the courts make the decision. Representative Daughtry, if you have that much faith in the courts, that matter is now being decided by our Supreme Court. So let's see what our Supreme Court has to say about this matter before we rush into something that we're going to regret later on. I would suggest that you vote against this bill, or, Representative Stam, take section 5 out of the bill, and let's--you raise your hand, you're right--5, take it out. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the gentleman if he would yield to an inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Since you've done, Representative Michaux. One of the cases that Judge Weeks removed from the death row was a 2000 case, State vs. Walters, Native American defendant, two white victims. It was a gang initiation. That had a six black and six white jury. Can you explain the racism that would be present in that kind of case? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can't explain it because I didn't hear the case and I don't have the facts before me at this time. If you give me a few moments--I've got Judge Weeks's decision here, and if you give me a few minutes and ask me later, maybe I'll have a chance to go through it and see why he did that. If you don't mind. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? Inquiry of the Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just want to know and make sure that any time that we spend responding to questions, that that time does not count against our allotment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct, sir. Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, there are many things as individuals that we don't like to talk about because those things tend to make us uncomfortable. Racism is one of those things. Race shouldn't matter, but it does matter. And in some cases, it matters whether you live or whether you die. Racism is everywhere. And it's even in the justice system. And North Carolina took a big step to eradicate racism and to ensure fairness and integrity in our justice system when we passed the Racial Justice Act. Representative Larry Womble did a lot of work on this bill and I'm sure he's frowning about what we're doing right now. Integrity and fairness are not foolish words. Fairness is a good "f" word. The Racial Justice Act allows people facing the death penalty--black, white, male, or female--to present evidence of racial bias, including statistics, in court. And as Representative Michaux has said, it doesn't get them out of jail, just off of death row. And none of us really should want to execute any person whose death sentence was based on race discrimination, whether discrimination was utilized or applied by prosecutors or jurors. The first priority of our criminal justice system--and I'm not a lawyer--but it should be to ensure justice and fairness and to not uphold verdicts that have any hint of racial discrimination. No one, supporters of capital punishment or opponents of capital punishment, want racial discrimination to be a factor in the courtroom. And it should not be. In this General Assembly, we talk a lot about working across the aisle. Now the concepts embedded in the Racial Justice Act, as it was proposed, was supported by a cross-section of people around this state, including Democrats and Republicans, by supporters and opponents of the death penalty. And as a matter of fact, eight Republicans in the Senate voted for the Racial Justice Act. As an African-American, I certainly can understand the comments that Representative Michaux has made, because if you haven't walked in these shoes,

You don’t know how they feel. But I can tell you that more people who look like me fall victim to a justice system that is not always just for us. Because of the impact of that existing racism, we need it, the Racial Justice Act, in the first place, to ensure that fairness and integrity in our justice system to help prevent more innocent African-American defendants from being wrongly sentenced to death. There are many cases to support the fact right here in North Carolina, that race have been a factor and we heard several of those today. We’ve had several cases that were mentioned by Representative Glazier. The point I’m trying to make is simply this: that the justice system is comprised of human beings and human beings are not perfect. None of us our. Unfortunately, some people are still guided by conscious or unconscious racial bias. We might not like to talk about it, but racism is alive, it’s well, and it’s read. It’s real and it is a real problem. As policy makers we have a responsibility to ensure that, as much as possible, that fairness prevails in everything that we do. The least that we can do is to put in place a mechanism that provides for all people, regardless of race or religion, regardless of socioeconomic status. The right to a system that treats them fairly and justly. The Racial Justice Act provides that sense of assuredness and we should leave this law intact to continue to do what it was intended to do. To ensure fairness, equity and justice. Let’s not undo the good that we did by instituting the Racial Justice Act that was needed than and it’s still needed now. Vote against this bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, just wish to comment on a few points that have been made in debate and add a few points that have not yet been raised. The first is that there’s been a lot of reference from Representative Stam about the deterrent effect of the death penalty and I’d just like to note that as has been noted, we’ve not had any executions since 2006 and since 2006, the murder rate in this state has dropped. That whole linkage that some talk about is simply not there. The murder rate has dropped since 2006 and no executions since 2006, first point. Second point, this is not Representative Stam, the so-called, Racial Justice Act, it is the Racial Justice Act. I was one of the primary sponsors of this bill and I want to thank, publicly, former Representative Larry Womble of Forsyth County offered his great leadership in working on this bill and ultimately having this bill come into law. Actually what we have here today are two bills and I think when Representative Daughtry said, you want a death penalty restoration, or you said, Representative Daughtry, of course, abolition bill, you said put one in. I feel the same way. You want a death penalty restoration bill, put that in. But what we have here is two separate bills merged into one. We have the death penalty restoration clear and we have the repeal of the Racial Justice Act, and that’s most unfortunate because there are some members in here who would vote to restore the death penalty, but will not vote to eliminate to repeal the Racial Justice Act. People should just be very clear about that and it’s most unfortunate that there are not separate bills. Senator Goolsby chose to put them together and unfortunately the committee system brought it that way as well. It’s important, again, to remember that in the Racial Justice Act, that people are not let out. The infamous and reprehensible campaign ad from 2010 that was used, that said that those who voted for the Racial Justice Act had voted to let convicted murderers out of jail and back on the street. Some of you know it was actually used against one of our Representative not here who had voted against the bill, yet it was used against him in his attempt to be re-elected and did lose that campaign. The fact is is life without without parole it’s no picnic to be in jail without parole for the rest of your life.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield at the end of my remarks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman does not yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The fascinating thing about the bill is section 5A. Representative Stam referenced section 5A. 5A just repeals the use of statistics. Now, some of you know that I teach sociology and it is just kind of amazing, if I went into class and said, “Now class, we are not going to use any data in our class. We just don’t want to use data.” But that is basically what this bill says is let’s not use data. Let’s not look at jury compositions. That is really what the Racial Justice Act is about is looking at jury compositions and its impact on court cases. And there has been a lot of consternation on the part of some people that white defendants, whites on death row, were making use of the Racial Justice Act. But look, the Racial Justice Act allows people to do that because it is asking about jury composition and whether jury composition has something to do with the conviction of someone and the giving of a capital sentence, the death penalty. Whether the defendant is black, white, or green, it is looking at the fact of whether the jury having constituted relative, or well basically, one or zero African Americans on the jury, whether that has some impact on the death penalty. Now, I know some of you say, “Oh God, don’t go into sociology, Luebke.” But the fact is that African Americans are far more skeptical of the criminal justice system than our white Americans. Representative Michaux addressed that directly, with good reason. You don’t know what DWB is? Ask an African American, especially an African American male. Driving While Black. And that just summarizes a lot of the problems that African Americans have with the criminal justice system. It is why African Americans might be more likely not to give a white defendant the death penalty. It is as simple as that. So there is nothing complex about why white defendants on death row would have used the Racial Justice Act. In sum, the Racial Justice Act is a good act. It is unfortunate it has gotten merged with the other bill about death penalty restoration. They should have been split and we should sustain the Racial Justice Act. Thank you. I hope and I urge you to vote no on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would Representative Luebke yield for two questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, do you yield for two? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Of course, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The first one, would you explain to the house why these 152 convicted murderers who apparently had tainted juries, why they should spend their life in prison without parole instead of getting a new trial? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Under this bill, it simply asks the question of whether there is a problem with jury selection. And it is saying, in order not to have, I don’t want to be personal, but folks like you say, “Oh, these folks got off,” it is saying you are not going to get off, you are going to have life without parole, precisely to try to undercut the criticism that this bill is about letting murderers back out on the street. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second question, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And here I address you as a sociologist, probably the only one here. Representative Jordan asked Representative Michaux about one of the cases that Judge Weeks said was infected with racism, State vs Walters, a gang initiation case. It had six black citizens of Cumberland County on the jury. Do you believe that six black jurors from Cumberland County could be so infected by racism that they would send somebody, sentence them to death? [SPEAKER CHANGSE] Representative Stam, Judge Weeks worked on that case. I didn’t talk to him. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pierce, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I want to be able to speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to add a few comments. There is a question that is asked, and I think many of us have talked around it today, of why does jury diversity matter? Beyond the constitutional issues with some type of strike, individuals from the pool based on their race, systematically includes inclusion of African American jury undermines the public confidence of both individuals who are in the court systems, studies have shown that community perception of justice is based upon its faith in the process by which the outcome achieved by the process and make sure that it is fair and transparent. And lack of jury diversity

DNC has time to receive the state of the pages of his publicist in addition to address the impact of Juliet offices in delegate from which to timers deal of using them as addictive as important to point the west Germans forget that will act as a child, not the right of citizens all as uses of the city's newest time I'll as he read-only that the downfall act of defiance of thing at the top right to be his time house-to-3000 of the call of the heap praise on the land is the time the jury selection from one of the depot in CMP's editing a soft economic date, time-that the https recommending that the only state in a few of the office and not be where was the having won the event of these attacks, and he wants Israel and the height of the fact that just these on disease and all at the site that's also a time this evening, as they do give me enough to let his deposition so-called along as the time person is very pleasing to purpose and begins and ends in my test for Haiti Times raised out of high you know them all in the hello all in all the more tiles about is a very personal thing one can help you in the tiled things 95 in the tile and readings are run one of the day in and wants in the concept I'll outline his plays the role of a high state of the strength to fight all of the right things chances to have you seen the value of whom were out in the letters to the rains and winds gentleman for some of the panel Monday and see us all and dance with my appeal acted on-the courts one time as of 1981 when the wind down and see my ??is highest in the name of the crackdown in cents a minute he was convicted of spying in the canals and the incident, in the city of Jaffna Principal Mary out so high and riled out of his main goal of making friends with fifth, announced a plan and it was just a one-way wall in the house and tell how to recognize time that has online , not NT and I want to my ??is not one more privacy act on reading the U.S. and in on you and in a press child-the last few seasons venting of knots and I'll rerun is an area not a dozen of the youth of the now a portion of the justice of its hands in the minds and I think it was not an approximate I'll be not want to have a, when terry has been relieved of thing in my time in a row of small-unit of time , any of the people inside of how the idea here at the 1990 eight times faster way, is now the lights went out and seeing here are the best when I look ???..........

His life incarcerated, convicted by two juries, here in the great state that I love that is North Carolina. I cannot support anything that allows to continue to happen. The whole world is watching. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tim Moore, 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. Members of the House. Number of hours growing long. I'll make this brief. Last year speaker asked me to chair an interim committee that looked at the issue of capital punishment and we did that, a number of you on that committee. Part of that even included a visit to death row. And we went over there, saw everything from where they live to where they executions take place. Talked with a number of folks. And we had several hearings. Had folks come in who testified we had a those who had been wrongfully convicted. And we had a number of of family members. Folks who came in and testified. There were family members of all races that were death row defendants of all races. So it's, one thing I picked up from it is, it wasn't a racial issue. There's been much made about fact there has been some bad convictions and that's true. I think we acknowledge that's happened. But in those cases, those folks were vindicated through motions for appropriate relief through DNA evidence. Through other things. The flaw of this bill is that it doesn't go to a problem with a particular case. It tries to put a cartblanche solution to something that is not there. Under this law, under this bill as it presently is, unless we amend it, a person could walk in to a Walmart and shoot ten people in point blank range, caught on video, and no dispute that they did it. And still try to use the racial justice act a basis to avoid the death penalty. Here's another irony with the racial justice act, the way it presently is, it would allow a man who is an ?? white supremest member of the Arian Nation, who murdered an African-American victim to argue that he was a victim of racism. That's the flaw with the bill, with the law, as it's presently written. Members, this bill corrects that. This bill is to push through justice to make sure that a person is judged for the crimes they committed not for what somebody else did. Members I would urge the body to support this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Farmer Butterfield, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and and gentleman. Passages of this bill and it's goals to restart executions do not make North Carolina a safe place to live. The death penalty has a tremendous amounts of money. A lot of resources and yet less then 1% of individuals tried for first degree murder receive death sentences. What if you were not able to serve on a jury because you went to a particular university with not a high school graduate ?? or law enforcement connections or military connections. Or you just liked eye contact. Instead of focusing our efforts on rushing to restart executions we ought to be considering how we can better serve victims and actually take steps to make communities safer. Killing somebody by mistake once in a while is not okay. North Carolina is better than this. I ask that you oppose Senate bill 306. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jerry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry to chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amount of time left for. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 13 minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. And I'll certainly save time for others. I wanted to make sure we didn't get too far off the subject. And part of the question we face now, and yes, racism is uncomfortable and all of us in here, black, white, indian or otherwise, have experienced moments when we caught ourselves and said, "that was probably a racist thought. That was probably a stereotypical thought that I had."

And of course being a Marine I have thoughts of people being inferior to me all the time. Maybe so. But our responsibility is probably the greatest. We talk about passing bills that will create judgeships and bills that eliminate judgeships and bills that increase the penalties and bills that take away the funding necessary to pay the judges to enforce the greater penalties. And all of that responsibility falls on us. So we can't take part of it and walk away from the rest of it. When we talk about these cases and the question of these constitutional rights involved, this jury of your peers and the selection process, it's important to note that not only are the rights of the accused at issue, but the rights of those who are in jury service are at issue as well. That they deserve to be treated fairly and not discriminated against. And that is a portion of this act that we have to understand. Samuel Poole, many of you might not know him or Christopher Spicer, maybe Tim Ennis, some of you might know that name and Alfred Rivera, sound familiar? Allan Gale, Jonathan Hoffman. Glenn Chapman, maybe Levon Bo Jones. How about Ronald Cotton? You know Darryl Hunt you heard his name. Dwyane Dail? Maybe you don't know these gentlemen. But they are North Carolinians. Maybe you think they should have the same rights as the rest of us. Should be treated fairly. They're death row and non death row exonerees though. They went through the system. They were treated unfairly and as a result we had people on death row that should not have been there. Now what does that do to our system and the confidence of our public in that system? That responsibility we still have. If we have not improved that since we've been here then we failed our duty. We make judges. We make the law. We give them the budget and we tell them to enforce it. I love DAs. They have a role to serve. If they want to be legislators they need to put their name on the ballot and run if they wanna make the laws. They have a duty to enforce the law through prosecution. And sure, they have a lot of discretion. But to have the shameful act of consciously having training to subvert the law in order to be able to meet out the death penalty after we know time after time how dangerous that is thinking about the number of innocent people who we have taken off of death row in North Carolina so every caution we can take to ensure fairness is essential. And the names of those gentlemen I read who lost parts of their lives that we could never repay no matter what price I don't know what the price is to you to hold your grand baby in your arms. I don't know what price it is to you to hold your loved one before you get on that trip to come to Raleigh and when you get back. I don't know what the price was to you to see your child graduate or see your parent on their 80th birthday. I don't know what that value is to you and I don't know what it was to those men. But everything we can do to make this system work properly and fairly and abide by the highest standards we have an obligation to do. Let the rest follow. We're paid to lead. We come down here. We take that oath and this is one of the times we should take it the most seriously. That we should hold that standard high and say we do not want there to be any question when the ultimate penalty is given as to whether there was any bias, whether it is as to race, of a juror, or race of a defendant. We don't want there to be a question. We want to sleep at night with a clear conscience, get up in the morning and look in the mirror and know we did what we should do in our position with the responsibility we have as legislators. There's no one else we can look to.

no one has this ultimate power, this is the ultimate power, any power that the judges have we give it to them. we as the representative of the people and they entrust us to ensure those power are used not only judiciously but fairly and there can not be room in our system fro there be a question in the inner mine as to the whether discrimination played a role in selection of the jury, in the selection of the punishment to be requested, in the decision made by the jury we have been down this road, this is the top issue, i faced discrimination and i know how battle discrimination, every one of you in your heart and in your mind know that you have that battle every day whether its sex discrimination, race discrimination, cast-ism all of them, but one thing that we can all respect is justice ?? no one can say that this ?? of justice, it may further ?? who want revenge, those who want to even this court, those who wanna better but not those who want justice ?? for justice ?? to a higher standard lead the way to get there, don't take the easy out and say let's just let things go by the way, take a position, make a difference you wanted to be here, this your opportunity,you say you are a leader, this is your opportunity, you say ?? the best day, in the best country of the world, this is your opportunity to live up to, which you can take above and bow your head and so called and then hope that everything turns out alright ?? dependent on you [SPEAKER CHANGE] ?? your purpose ?? the bill [speaker change] thank you respected members of the house ?? a lot of process today ?? about statistics, but lets talk about justice, because that's what this is about ?? this is about the death penalty and what is just and i put the question ?? to the house today ?? just couple of cases ?? do you know ?? one morning her and her husband went to the home ?? ?? on wheels a gentlemen by the name ?? how can you come back to the house because the person they were delivering the meals to, he had been to death early morning but had left his sunglasses he comes back for the sunglasses he sees the ?? he pulls his gun he shoots her in the back ?? and the only reason why her husband was also not killed to become the third murder victim of that morning was that hattford ?? this gentlemen in the case ?? couple of years ago, you know what he had it was a white victim ?? a white defendant, white lawyers, white judge, ?? were white, yet he ?? ?? justice act, is that justice? is that right? think about the case this is back in 1995 you can remember from way back ?? just free to kill. the murder of 11 year old girl ?? could have been 38 today she could have been member of this house ?? she could have been a carrier person she could have been all of this thing where she ?? what's justice for her? her name was amy jackson by the way ?? ?? lets talk about some afro american victims ?? let me give you some names, let me give you the name of

to shove- machine else this and Sean hall Carolina how she and as molested the August 19 right into Henderson that has some time that day and seeing how your head, and child may edit letters and documents that was larger tile and they are all part of the White House and the height of his appeal and all in all, these are just as that which at that was the judges, victims in this fight child pages rose seven nine, a friend who belong to a eyes as this under NT all other judgments child to a native of car dealers we have a need and not a law enforcement officers Chinese share on how to follow through the end of the Exxon was just as that is as the state's unique insight in your heart has just with seven-cent of your home run in high enough count I'll rates are matters for pleasure to watch are buying into that house fires from 7:00 those facts: was justice child feeding behind the victims of these as I'll fire all handgun and Tellers and designed for use of what is justice and often processing, but halftime as well as message the house may substitute isn't all six a rectory, sex and secondly alderman the hall designed for women who was important times and had a different and 1400 house may substitute said the prison's misery of the syntax of tax-and raise the reins of power places of this completes the founder of the day all businesses owned router was the very heart of the unfinished business with our view of the chair of arts you all the objections raised about 1000 a sense of the database wander for the pointer sisters when you run fine line for tiles action -oriented on sun to two visit committee reports messages from several times in one of the race and timeouts persons are not as dangerous corner of the city's event has renounced time but as with all this media player has siphoned off: child person Turner was major purpose of nightmares and submit these of the dollar know is I never wanted personal privilege that his estimate for me the ball-handler of these paintings and made-in-house that Thailand ?? presently on the stage, this time because as one of the senate, and artisans event as well for more prison for a visitor, this child person as we stated purpose of White House mistake India when was the site on the downside is that has been sentenced is one answer …………………

...you let the members know that tomorrow is the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Day, AKA Day in the legislature. This is an annual event held by the sorors and the members of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, so you'll see a lot of pink and green tomorrow. Hopefully, many of the ladies of the sorority will have an opportunity to talk to you about various issues. They have sent you an e-mail inviting you to come to several of the events. And if you will look at that and if you have an opportunity to stop by, we'd appreciate that very much. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, members of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Lewis and Setzer are recognized to send forth a committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Lewis and Setzer for Finance. House Bill 998, Simplified Adjustment to Federal Taxable Income, favorable as to the Committee Substitute, unfavorable as to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 998 is re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion pertaining to re-referral of a bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Senate Bill 321, short title is Contain Counties Inmate Medical Costs. Move the bill be removed from the Committee on HHS and referred to the Committee on Judiciary B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will have full appropriations. You need to listen up. We will have full appropriations tomorrow morning at 8:00. 8:00 Room 643. Full appropriations and I believe it's the bill that was just referred to as House Bill 998. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Full commerce will meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow in Room 643 and Senate Bill 76, the Domestic Energy Jobs Act will be taken up and every member of the House Commerce Committee should have a copy of the proposed Committee Substitute, which means you will have had it 24 hours before the committee, which we will take a vote on the bill tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of Judiciary B, we will be meeting in our regular place and we've already sent out a notice, but we were just referred a bill, Senate Bill 321, Contain Counties Inmate Medical Costs. That will be added to the agenda for tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to congratulate the Union County High Schools. We've had two of the State's four State Baseball Championships located in Union County. Piedmont High School won the State AA Championship in baseball. Weddington High School won the State AAA Championship in baseball for the second year in a row. And I thank you for that. [Applause] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Democrats will caucus one hour before session tomorrow in Caucus Room 1425. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pierce, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For announcement, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the Legislative Black Caucus will have a meeting as soon as we're out at a few minutes. Thank you. In our regular meeting room. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate, excuse me, House Finance will meet in the morning in Room 544, 8:30. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee on State Personnel will meet tomorrow at 12 in 544 LOB. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, again for planning purposes, tomorrow we will meet again at 2:00. We will go for a period not to exceed two hours and plus or minus a few minutes. And then on Thursday, we will meet at 1:00, the Chair does not expect that meeting to go more than an hour from 1:00 until 2:00, so that the Appropriations Committees will be able to complete their work. And we're trying to work out the time on Friday. We understand there are those that have travel commitments and other things that they want to get to, so we're leaning more towards an earlier session so that we can...

we can potentially get out by late morning and we will inform you as soon as we have a better read of the business that we’ll have to take up on Friday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements. Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn to reconvene tomorrow, Wednesday, June 5th, 2013 at 2:00 p.m., subject to receipt of messages from the Senate, committee reports, receipt of conference reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees and committee appointments, and further modifications, as necessary, to the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Dollar, subject to receipt of messages from the Senate, committee reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, and committee appointments, that the House do now adjourn to reconvene on June 5th at 2:00 p.m. All in favor say aye, all opposed no. The ayes have it. The House stands adjourned.