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 7, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The Sergeant of Arms will close the doors. The prayer will be offered by Representative Marvin Lucas. Members and visitors of the gallery, please stand and please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES]My fellow legislators, it's Friday, and it's a day that we normally don't meet, but it's a day that the Lord made. The American patriot Thomas Payne once that 'These are the times that try men so, some are a sojourn sunshine patriot may in the time of crisis, shrink from the service of his country.' We will not shrink. I refer you to excerpts for Ecclesiastes. 'To everything there's a season, and a time for every purpose under the sun, a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted. A time to break down, and a time to build up, a time to weep, and a time to life. A time to mourn, and a time to dance. A time to keep, and a time to cast away. A time to eat solids, and a time to speak. But most of all, a time to love, and not hate.' Let us bow. Kind Father, help us to love, not hate. Help us to cast away stones, help us to love mercy and to walk humbly with you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, the journal for Thursday, June 6, 2013, has been examined and found to be correct I believe it to be approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Moore moves that the journal for June the 6th be approved as written, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The journal is approved as written. Petition for moral or papers to be address the General Assembly or the House. Chaptered bills will be noted. Messages from the Senate, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senate Committee substitute for House Bill 24, a bill to be entitled and act to amend the procedures for person's probation are directed to participate in the abusive treatment program and make clarifying changes relating to domestic violence offenses. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Calendar pursuant to Rule 36B. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senate Committee substitute for House Bill 456, a bill to be entitled and act concerning membership, domestic violence review team in Meckenburg County and establish a domestic violence in Pitt county, and Alamance County. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Calendar pursuant to Rule 36B. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senate Committee substitute for House Bill 505, a bill to be entitled and act to codify and make permanent the program for inspections of certain animal operations by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Calendar pursuant to Rule 36B. Calendar House Bill 88, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senate Committee substitute for House Bill 88, a bill to be entitled and act to make technical corrections to the law pertaining to lien agent. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Ladies and gentlemen, we are temporarily displaced. We do not believe Representative Hurley is in the chamber. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, it should be Representative Jordan, I think. That's a bill we. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES]But he's not here right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES]And Representative Jordan's not in the chamber. We will displace.

House Bill 276 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 276 a bill to be entitled an act to clarify and modernize statutes regarding zoning boards of adjustment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion for concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill that came from the Senate had lots and lots of technical changes, but nothing substantive except for recognizing the reality of about four local acts concerning boards of adjustment, and deals with that. So I move for adoption, or concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the motion to concur in the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 276. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will out machine record the vote. Ninety-eight having voted affirmative, none in the negative, the House has concurred in the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 276, the Senate will be so notified. The bill being rolled and sent to the Governor. House Bill 270 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 279 a bill to be entitled an act to authorize the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to transfer certain environmental permits associated with property development when the original property owner is unwilling or unable to agree to the permit transfer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, this bill got 100% approval from this chamber, and the only change to this bill was a one small technical revision, just a word change. I fully support this revision and ask everyone in this chamber to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the motion to concur in the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 279. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. The clerk will out machine record the vote. Ninety-nine having voted affirmative, none in the negative, the House has concurred in the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 279, the bill being rolled and sent to the Governor. House Bill 317, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 317 a bill to be entitled an act to improve educational outcomes for North Carolina children who are deaf or hard of hearing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move that the House do concur with the Senate Committee Substitute. And if I may speak on the motion, the only change made from the bill, that I believe passed the House unanimously before it went over to the Senate, was a reference that said deaf and hard of hearing being changed to deaf or hard of hearing. I’d ask the House to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the motion to concur in the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 317. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. The clerk will out machine record the vote. One hundred having voted affirmative, none in the negative, the House has concurred in the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 317, the bill being rolled and sent to the Governor. We’re back up to the top of the agenda. House Bill 88 is properly before us. Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that we do concur. This is a bill that we already did, making some technical changes to the lien law. Basically all the Senate did was change the date as to when it becomes…

[Speaker changes.]...effective three days after it's signed by the Governor. I ask for your support, thank you. [Speaker changes.] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur to the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 88. All in favor vote aye. Opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 97 having voted in the affirmative, 2 in the negative. The House has concurred to the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 88. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Senate Bill 268, the Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 268, a bill to entitle an act to allow the town of Sunset Beach to oppose canal dredging and maintenance fee. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [Speaker changes.] Representative Iler, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] To debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members of the House, we had a ?????? on this yesterday and it did involve a fee; however, this fee is self-imposed by the homeowners and is only collected by the city to make it more efficient to have these canals dredged. I urge your support once again. [Speaker changes.] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 268 on its third reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 100 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 268 has passed its third reading and will be enrolled. Ladies and gentleman, the next three bills are voice votes so if you're moving around the chamber, you need not get back to your desk to vote. House Bill 1005, the Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Committee Substitute for House Bill 1005 a bill to enact ???? to district the Stanley County Board of Commissioners and the Stanley County Board of Education. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [Speaker changes.] Representative Burr, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] To speak on the bill. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill takes the current five member board of county commissioners and the nine member board..school board...and puts them both at seven...four districts, three at large. I would ask for all the members support. Thank you, Mister Speaker. [Speaker changes.] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1005 on its second reading. All in favor say aye. (Ayes.) All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1005 passed its second reading without objection and will be read a third time. [Speaker changes.]General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [Speaker changes.]Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1005 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. (Ayes.) All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1005 passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. [Speaker changes.] Senate Bill 67, the Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Committee Substitute for Senate bill 67, a bill to entitle and enact ??? Surrey???? community college to convey property by gift to Yadkin County and to lease a portion of any structures subsequently built on that property. General Assembly North Carolina enacts. [Speaker changes.] Representative Hollo, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] Debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] This is a local bill, about fourteen years ago, Yadkin County gave 34 acres to Surrey???? Community College to build a building on a parcel, which they did. The college now wishes to give back seven and a half acres, back to Yadkin County and the county plans to construct a building that would have a convention center and the county...for the county and additional space for the college to rent for 99 years. The county would own the land and the building. 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 67 on its second reading. All in favor say aye. (Ayes.) All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 67 has passed its second reading without objection and will be read a third time. [Speaker changes.] General Assembly 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 67 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. (Ayes.) All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The Senate Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 67 has passed its third reading. The bill will be enrolled. Senate Bill 257, the Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 257, a bill to be filed to enact and enable a transition of properties of the area along their common boundaries between ????? and Guilford counties by requiring a survey of the boundary lines between... [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.]

General assembly of North Carolina ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Riddell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaking on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Friends, this bill is very similar to one that was done two years ago in this body to allow Alamance and Orange County to settle their order, this is going to do the same for Alamance and Guilford. The process with Alamance and Orange went very smoothly, this has the same technical composition and I appreciate 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 257 on its second reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The ayes have it, the senate committee substitute to senate bill 257 has passed its second reading, and without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General assembly of North Carolina ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate, if not, the question before the house is the passage of the senate committee substitute to senate bill 257 on its third reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The ayes have it, the senate committee substitute to senate bill 257 has passed its third reading, the bill ??. Ladies and gentlemen, without objection, house bill 816 will be removed from today's calendar, and re-calendared for Monday June 10th, is there objection? So ordered. Senate bill 9, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee subject number two for senate bill 9 a bill ?? ?? requiring utility owners to locate and describe underground utilities upon written or oral request from a person who is responsible for ?? or surveying underground facilities or requires a general description and location of existing underground facilities in an area. General assembly of North Carolina ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The senate bill 9 is basically a companion to what's coming to you hopefully in a week or so, house bill 467, which rewrites the underground utility rules. This is a good bill, it deals with basically surveyors, and how the utilities interact with the surveyors. I ask for its passage. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To offer an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to set forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas moves to amend the bill on page 2 line 14 by deleting the phrase "shall be allowed at least ten days," and substituting the phrase "shall." [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill was heard in committee a couple days ago, and I had a request from a local utility to add the ten day phrase in the bill, subsequent to that they changed their minds, they don't particularly want that, and this really pleases all the other stakeholders, and there's no opposition to taking this out, as I understand it. So I ask for your support on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We are in agreement with the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment set forth by Representative Lucas to the house committee substitute for senate bill 9. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. All members please record. Representative Goodman. Representative Wray, will the gentleman ask Representative Goodman if he wishes to record? The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 102 have voted in the affirmative, and none in the negative, the house committee amendment passes, we're back on the bill. Further discussion, further debate. Representative Hager please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, I need to object the third reading. We have a date issue on this bill, we need to move the date out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will carry it over. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute number 2 for senate bill 9 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. 102 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The house committe substitute number 2 for senate bill 9 as amended has passed its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Senate bill 76 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute for senate bill 76 a bill ?? ?? an act to authorize the department of environment and natural resources to issue permits on or after March 1

the wily gas expiration and development activities is made, including use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing treatments for that purpose. but that those permits from becoming effective until a subsequent act of the Johnson authorizes those permits,` directed mining and energy commission to study the development of the properties of environmental permit boiling gas expiration and development activity using parts already in hydraulic fracturing treatments. why did mining and energy commission and the department of revenue to state inception, but attacks for the severance of the indigent minerals from the soil, water of the state in an amount sufficient to cover all costs associated with administration of the modern regulatory program for the management of oil and gas exploration and development activities using the process of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing treatments for that purpose, including creation of an energy fund to protect and preserve the state 's natural resources, cultural heritage and quality of life directive mining and energy commission and other entities to study and issue it recommendation for an impact fee or dedication of a portion of any severance tax to be imposed on all the gas exploration and development activities using hard-sell drilling and hydraulic fracturing treatments that would be sufficient to cover all costs of a reasonably expected to accrue to local governments as a result of these that such activities occurring within their jurisdictions, director mining and energy commission, the department environment, natural resources and the consumer protection division,Department of Justice, as stated in issue recommendations for creation of a restitution fund for land owners harmed himself that fraud, deception and misrepresentation. if the artwork will yield [SPEAKER CHANGES]. without objection, the chair would ask you to read the title. so we get over the him, I further discussion from the right herbs installed. please take your purpose debate of you who don't bring us [SPEAKER CHANGES]. to make Bill this figure is still a house, stop thinking repetitive bowls represent Heger said above Newton and his staff spent numerous hours working on this bill into an agreement single seventy six takes us and a big step forward for North Carolina if racial natural gas and the deal is as is. it is a detailed technical video output through hit the highlights will plan a route with an womb you for questions and section one that the department is the most discussion is of course the March first twenty fifteen days and I would remind members that permits issued for gas activities will become effective will not become effective until the General assembly takes affirmative action. it was very important for us to put that in their announced version two thousand four eleven and twelve. we promised his house for it would come back for digital simile for a vote before the rules will go back in the difference between a House version. the Senate version was if we left it the way to sit ahead aggressively got assigned to the committee and not been heard and ruled an effective video into the session, so we thought was very important. going back for the General assembly, especially the house with the promise we made an section two is a study as we were studying the make sure the other minute commission and Peter do a study to develop a coordinated permitting program for gas expiration and develop activities using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing treatments in order to a single comprehensive inbound model vinyl permit or looking to streamline the process, they shall give one permit section him. he is a service tax study will inform us have a study on the service tax in this inadvertent, the argumentative service packs are overlooking to. we want to make sure that the service pack includes the operation of this alcohol 's capacity for Asian insight on cost alone make sure we put that in the end was without of the coldness in a vacuum on it you commission to study you look at other twenty some states, there were doing and what there's no calls were. we also produce an aesthetic vision in for the local governments to make sure that the colleague of his alleys and Associates, a County commissioners have had some inside the Holocaust that is locally back home without is very important for us to does in this thirty minute commissions owed to see the impact directly will have any communities. the natural gas was want to be on its

We sent that back to the ?? commission. The other session which was the land owner protection fund in the original senate version they took the land owner protection fund and well they didn't have it just make sure I'm not getting ahead of myself here. land owner restitution fund and basically for anyone that had fraud or deception or misrepresentation in the facts related to oil and gas interest in the contracts we want to make sure we'll able to protect them. The next one was getting ahead of myself was the land ?? registry in the senate bill they took it completely out and what we did in the house version we actually put some teeth in it we wanted to make sure it had some real meaning and the 2012 provision required ?? to establish and maintain a registry of land ?? operating in this state under this statute land ?? is defined as person that is in the course and scope of the person business doing the following hold on, the way we have it the statute authorizes the ?? to deny restoration to any applicant for 5 different reasons this bill amends the land ?? registry to advise violations are punishable administrative penalty not to exceed 5,000 per violations so that was a big change in what the Senate had the next point was the offshore protection fund we increased that fund to 500 million and the reason we did was we got the number from New Orleans and what happen in New Orleans we thought was very important that we were able to establish that fund also establish the fact that if we did have any problems the state of NC can sue and as for the attorney fees back in the process as well. The next part of that bill allows the governor to have direction for the offshore energy compact we thought it was important for the governor to work with the governor of SC and Virginia to develop a reasonable strategy strategy for the expiration of offshore energy and in the last part of that bill modifies the electrical requirements to allow hospitals to use compressed natural gas Mr Speaker I would like to ask if we have staff available for any questions on the floor?

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill is a fantastic bill. I think it's a good consumer protection bill. It walks the line between being a good business economic development bill plus protecting the environment and protecting our citizens. Representative Stone and Representative Boles have worked on this bill a long time. I think it is in congruency with what we said we would do last time in H20 and I think it dovetails nicely. I think the key component for me is that it comes back to, the rules comes back to us as a legislative body. We all have a responsibility for our citizens and our constituents to look at those rules and say yes we like them or we don't like them, they're the best practice or they're not the best practice and they're the protection that we think they should be or they're not. It will come back to us to decide that. So we'll have another bite at the apple, so to speak. So I want to commend Representative Boles and Representative Stone for doing a fantastic job and I ask for each one of you to vote on this bill, vote yes on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Hager a question. Representative Hager, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, in the Commerce Committee you put forward an amendment related to the Energy Jobs Committee or whatever the specific name was and to move it from ?? where it is in the bill to Commerce and then in Environment you didn't offer that amendment indicating you were going to talk to the administration. I assume you came down leaving it where it is but could you explain why you changed your view or what additional information you got. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative McGrady. What we had, talked to Secretary Scolara yesterday and some of the Governor's staff ?? also and talked to Representative Stone and Representative Boles. I had an amendment that was prepared. We just couldn't get the amendment prepared in time but with the momentum of this bill I'd like to see this bill passed out and will promise we'll work on that in conference and get that fixed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think they've done a very good job on the House version of this bill. The Senate version raised a lot of alarms and I think it's very important that we note that this bill does not lift the moratorium on waste injection wells which was a major concern. So I urge your support. Thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And to send forth an amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House. I want to echo the sentiments that have been expressed of Representative Boles and Representative Stone and the House Leadership on fixing a very problematic Senate bill and taking out a lot of the troubling provisions and sending us a much better bill for consideration in the full House. I still have some concerns. I think, I disagree with Representative Catlin. I do think that this lifts the moratorium on fracking beginning March 1st, 2015. And this is particularly problematic. We saw that Denar Study last session, that 400 page study that listed a number of items that were potential problematic for North Carolina and that needed further study. Now there are some studies in here but it's a very complicated, we have a shell gas resources that are close to our drinking water sources that may endanger and subject to contamination our limited drinking water sources in our State. We don't really have a history of extracting industries in our State. We have a mining and energy commission that we've charged with establishing these procedures and they're working hard but we don't know that they're necessarily going to have these rules in place in time for these permits to be issued and that's a problem and we also don't know because of the language of the bill whether the permit holders are going to have vested rights and rights to appeal and those issues were raised in committee. So I think there are some problems associated with that. That's the fracking piece of the bill. This also promotes offshore drilling and I think that many of us are concerned about what that means for our coast. We have a $3 billion economy at our coast that depends on clean marine life and a clean coastal economy. 67,000 North Carolina jobs are dependent on that. We've got a biologically rich area off the point, Cape Hatterus, that's one of the most biologically rich areas on the east coast and that's where many of these potential resources, oil and gas resources, are located. So that might be at risk if we start fracking, i mean, sorry, drilling. I think in addition the way

That the Energy Jobs Council has changed and the Energy Policy Council has changed. And that Energy Jobs Council is problematic. The Energy Policy Council was established several decades ago, but was revised three years ago by this very legislature. And we expanded it and included a number of stakeholders who are involved in energy policy. Debate North Carolina which included renewable energy,energy efficiency, and low income energy and those were all removed in this,these changes to the Energy Policy Council which also has moved from Commerce which is the job promoter to DENR which is the job, which is the environment protector and the regulator. So I do have some problems with that. So I think that it’s unfortunate. I really appreciate the leadership and the bill sponsors for bringing us a better bill, but I’m still troubled by it. And Mr. Speaker, if I could be recognized to send forth an amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to send forth an amendment and the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison moves to amend the bill, page one.lines two through eight by rewriting those lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I offered a different amendment on the same subject yesterday in committee, but this would simply delay the issuance of any permanence for oil and gas exploration in North Carolina until the EPA’s completed its study on fracking. The EPA’s began a study a couple of years ago and they anticipate to be finished by the fall of 2014. There have been a number of case studies around the states including Dimmicks, Pennsylvia and Pavillion, Wyoming. Where they’re finding contamination in the groundwater resources. And so I, it’s been pointed out to me that some of the shale gas resources intercept with our water table close to Jordan Lake imperiling that important drinking water source and potentially pouring those contaminants into the Cape Fear River. That could impact many and I would just urge your support because this would delay any permits being issued until we actually understand the water quality impacts of fracking. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative further discussion, further debate on the amendment. Representative Stone, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, we ask you to oppose the amendment. We worked hard at putting this bill together, moving us forward in the right direction. I think Representative Harrison has the same concerns that we have on this side. And I want to assure you that we working toward more information as we proceed. We have a long ways to go. And we need to keep this bill moving in the right direction. So we can assure ourselves that we‘re gonna have the best rules and regulations in the nation. So I ask you to oppose this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Boles, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Once again, I'll ask you to oppose the amendment. We’ve got the deal, we’ve worked on it. And you will have a vote on the issues per ?? Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lady is recognized to debate the amendments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, besides all of the points that Representative Harrison has made about the safety of the water once we’ve start this process. There is additional research that’s being done currently that is showing that the chemicals from fracking are particularly harmful to women and women’s health. And so I would ask you to lend your support to this amendment to make sure that we’re doing this in a way that recognizes all of the health and safety issues around drilling and what will happen to our water sources and

Stone and Representative Boles. Now I think, clearly, those of us that understand this issue, and I believe that everybody in this House does, knows that they represent the area of the state that would be most directly impacted by hydraulic fracturing. And I just would like to observe, as a representative that has watched them as they have handled this issue very delicately over the three years that I've been here, I think they've done a wonderful job in representing the counties that they represent, the districts that they represent. I too come from an area that would be directly impacted, and I understand that this is an issue, one of those issues that seems to elicit very highly emotional responses from some of the folks out there, with the calls and the emails and so forth. But I'm going to support this because I believe, and I know, that Representative Stone and Representative Boles have handled this in the right way. And with that said, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask if Representative Stone would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, thank you for yielding. Are you part or have you ever been a part of any kind of agenda, if you will, that you believe would harm the citizens of your district? I'd just like for you to speak on that for a moment, because I think there is this feeling out there among some that there's some kind of underhanded agenda, if you will, that's going to fast track and do all these things to our state that are going to be harmful for the citizens of our areas, and I don't think there's anybody here more qualified to speak on that than you and perhaps Representative Boles. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Jones, and I do appreciate the question. We've been committed from day one. We never said that we would enact natural gas exploration tomorrow, we said we'd have the best bill in the nation. And I was encouraged by that, from Representative Gillespie when he was here. We were committed to the fact that, as we moved forward, we'd make sure we did it in a sound way and protect our environment and our water. I've lived in Lee County my whole life, and this is a big issue in Lee County. And as one newspaper said, if natural gas exploration takes place, it'll take place in Lee County. And our citizens are as concerned as anyone in the state. It is a huge issue. But I want to assure you, as we move forward, that I'm looking to make sure that we move this process in the right way so that my kids can grow up and feel proud that their dad was part of this, and to make sure that the people in my community know that they were put first in this, foremost. We've done a lot of research, more so than I ever thought we would be involved in, and I'll tell you that there's a lot of information and there's a lot of wrong information. The Mining and Energy Commission that Representative Gillespie was a big part of, set up, it was having over 100 people attend those meetings in the beginning. It's down to 15 or 16. It's actually winning people over. It's showing folks that we can move in the right direction and we have a variety of ideas at the table. So I'm excited about this today and as we move forward, and we do have a journey to go. And I thank the leadership for letting me be part of this, and I want to assure again that our community and the people of the state of North Carolina are the first most important thing. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. I'd like to be recorded as voting no on the amendment. I had a problem with my finger and the button. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting no on the amendment, the Harrison amendment. Representative Jones, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask if Representative Boles would submit to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Boles, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Boles, and I assume you heard the question I just posed to Representative Stone, and I would like to give you the same courtesy, if you would, if you'd like to add to anything to what he said. I have admired the way that you and Representative Stone have handled this delicate issue over the past three years that I've been aware of and just ask if you'd like to comment on that same question, if you would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would, and I would like to say that I was not born in Moore County, but I've been there my whole life, and that, first of all, I would like to thank the Speaker's office for their support, and the staff that we have here in the General Assembly. We were assured that nothing would be fast tracked. We were assured by this body that we would have, that the voters, that this body would come back and vote on issuing

??minutes on the hydraulic fracturing. And I can assure you that the speaker’s staff has assured Mike and I, Representative Stone and I that would happen. I have family in Moore County. My children are in Moore County. I have businesses both in Moore County and in Lee County. As you all know I am in the funeral business, and first of all, part of that is trust by families. And I can assure you, I would not do anything to have put my community in an environmental situation that I could not defend. With that said, I think, as Representative Stone said we did not promise the state, the community or the industry that we would have a fast bill, but we would have the best bill. In with that, I will tell you people come to my office all the time. They were concerned. I was very concerned in this particular bill that came over from the Senate, about the Landman Registry wanted to be taken out. People call me at home, should I go ahead and sign a lease? Should I do this? And they trust me, and I tell them to just hold off, because the rules are not in place yet. And I feel very confident with the mining commission board that we have. These are great and well educated people that are putting together this bill. As Mike said, they started out with a hundred people attending the meetings. Now there are less than fifteen or so because they see the competency. And I would also just once again like to speak highly about our staff that we have here at the General Assembly with Jennifer McGinnis here. Thank you. [Speaker Change] Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Speak on the bill. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the fact that the bill was corrected to make sure that any actions that are taken going forward will come back before this body for approval before we go forward. You might recall that I was one of the people who on several occasions brought that point forward. That we need to ensure we don’t have these actions being taken just because there was not a meeting of the committee and therefore, whatever is proposed goes forward. So I appreciate the fact that one safeguard is in the bill. Regarding who is going to be affected by these polluted waters and our failure to take as much precaution as we can in advance, we do not get a do-over. And we know it’s going to cost us many times more to try to clean or rehab this water if it’s not properly handled and contaminates our water table and our other water. It’s the one resource that we cannot afford to have polluted because so many of us depend on it. Again, who’s going to be affected in the state also is partially depended upon how and where we dispose of this contaminated water. I want to just emphasize that although Representative Moore, Representative Boles’s county and Representative Stone’s county may be ground zero for this, and I do not use the term ground zero lightly. Durham County is likely to be affected by this as well. And we already have serious water concerns and want to be protected and want to make sure every step is taken to ensure that the water table and water supplies are preserved and protected. And don’t want to have to incur the additional expense of possibly having to come back later and clean or rehab that water and try and clean the environment. So, I am going to ask you vote against the bill at this time. Let’s go back and put sufficient protections in place. So we know that issue will be addressed and will protect all North Carolinians and our future and our children’s future. Thank you. [Speaker Change] Representative McManus, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To speak to the bill, please. [Speaker Change] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] I also represent that area that will be immediately impacted, because I represent part of Lee County and all of Chatham County. Representative Stone admitted that he had many citizens that expressed concerns about this. Based on my emails he may be underestimating those numbers, because I have very many who are very concerned about this. Both in Chatham and Lee.

and nothing has enhanced in July 1985 and 1981 student on janitors of the Indonesians the Disneyland other evenings and on martin's the time of the debtor-in-hiding in the Ira innings and their feelings about business and must now people are very afraid of what is the 10,000-29 tile and even sent out Lions are hiding the license and Judith acting said the statement is made and we had this as a political appointment aisle in article are estimating evidence that either he stays down time in processing and I'll the person they're PlayStation purpose and is as important as often as important for white child president has enveloped data level line 3110 H Point I'll whine 13 of the bind of slides for me because written as important as written estimate the pain is the data that misreading of this is his ordeal, a solid as a minute into for the changes time of the hustle to their deposit counselor news readers as economic development as it is being as all build a ZZ union are these events and operation China has responded in person is always major purpose in stating that it does written estimate, where more, it was possible to use when a person of the PlayStation purpose procession president of his not-for the house that has been a supporter of senators and house bassist time of set a sense alderman dollars a ton for women child who won time when of a sudden to the firm of limited and investors are some point the center purpose flour-as a middle-and an assist in their hands and out of bounds , and when you are an end at that time and Santa Ana’s foreign address this issue and sell me at all semi-dry lines as the day last year they can have this house and sand and has channel and San house harriers that come china's Cincinnati, and singing about all the races and landslides and forth interest in any condition after the fall and even handle ever since and finance laws and regulations me and finance , and is as evidence and has been working and working to get out Thailand regulations and sound of the hands of 17 passes for tiled when it announced an care of me, he went and how the economy and in some other things ended in May 19 seasons and severance payments there are a team resembles the request in writing, and some legislative nine-ounce at times resentment commission is running a small plastic pen in China Air Lines into a fight in her hands and said he had this is our borders when defining causes Damon’s seven and style are now seen as an orientation classes and one every year in and out that the answer form and as the time has his HR one and made them or not as a season as interest are as high as 18 of his acting dean said and what it says that in China and his partner of all adults and five and, if an aisle, and wants to come in off-night ratings and the ensconced here $97.00 and under that ran in red on an NT at ......................

we need to be historians of the process that were elected today. these departments. once their issue, and that company has bought their land worked with our citizens to promise them the million and we tried thinking in this study, all four studies that let the studies take place before you enact legislation and where can I say go ahead and set it all up and down, don't start the minor until the legislature of the Beyers says the rules are okay in here. the regulations now what if the General assembly in two thousand fifteen big assumption here, it could change, and it doesn't mean Democrats are Republican. it could mean more citizens running for election. they care about the most important resource we have in the state, and that's our water with a run for election, and I got elected, and they come up here and I say what is the matter, we don't want Franken or we want these rules tighter than they are. what happens if we stop it. what happens to those companies that have invested in North Carolina because some of you said go ahead and issue departments. what happens to this day. do they sue us if they come back in and were tied up in court costing the state more and more don't understand why we can't do and adhere to what we voted on within the state invented last year. what is the rush, I beg you to push the red button and vote no for our citizens for our children for our water this figures of our research and purpose for anyone to you for questions regarding his lady am well the fields [SPEAKER CHANGES] I heard her crying this was surely reading same bill, but am a monitoring system for all life questions. if the music server this morning. call this a freeze on tracking by telling what mistaken about that because it's Elijah Sandler losing all rains I did not present to speak for any newspapermisrepresented in either version of McGrady plays that your purpose to be built. the gentleman right now is to make built in speaker members. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate the work done by this, the sponsors of the bill on the past side. this is a much improved bill over what the Senate sent us. I also thank Brooklyn Hager for his amendment that was the issue of the question, we we had on the form. a while ago. in some ways I get a pass on this though because I oppose the threatening the last year and so there's actually no reason for me to support this bill, either. but with that said, I feel like God is an institutional responsibility to make sure different pastel that we get it right and I think there's still some problems with the bill and I would hope that least and conference week we address some on the bill allows dinner to start issuing tracking permits on March first two thousand fifteen, but it wasn't real clear and should certainly isn't sure that the General assembly will take an action by that point, so it's not clear tome what the benefit is of issuing permits within requiring legislative action to make the permits effective. basically what were doing here is issuing provisional permits and my guess is him via positive, that is, to the legal profession when they get to litigate the whole thing on the Internet environment committee. I asked the question related to the appeal of the comments. specifically, a state law currently allows sixty days to file a permanent appeal with the office of administrative hearings and the clock begins to run. soon his dinner provides notice of the permit decision. I also know I know that those comments can be appealed by a range of different people and parties, including the the applicant or local governments, and so the question was does the clock on an appeal start container issues a permit, or when the General assembly makes the permit effective and the answer from staff was basically endless bill sponsors

does not measure of the homes of the features of it has the city editor and writer here is that didn't seem as though the lottery supporters are not having limited edition time others wrong bus and entered office committee to please address a question on this today's editions today as it happens as in the Fi action and one of the Federal land this other than defense testimony and a rough road of the times, and no one is now is that the same reasons other than for the nineties and that the message that the changes and conceded they didn't handle on as the county's that the rise of one another China has to do that and in the conference child person has a PlayStation purpose said residing in a sense of place that has been a dozen and I insist the koran was the center has it was on the buses Bldg as early as Friday and permit better serve their purpose because it wasn't present the status of somebody in plain view that government cannot and does is billing or is this and hospital in Norris Tyler and 75 princes of the NAZI party were for every dollar in Cincinnati Reds fans are just it's not an impossibility of synergy that none of this is now making child resident of these major purpose steal the thunder has made the planes figure for reference night to concerns about our children are four times the idea of you know the history of the great deal of leaders of Israel has five years ago and the , but one story one-on and off in office for a state-all China bought my statement that house the running lights out in my decision is made at the beginning of this great state of union an idea of Mostar a lot of the Internet must use remains his world war and the state when the study found that the section and others of this as the wise van Nuys-survey of the nation of a player who blindly, as in last time that his you know I'm right of the day's events at the time is against the boxes and underground storage that fought against the hands of june the fact is the owner of the button of a landfill would object to enable our end of a sudden he's not that they're not an update that was concerned about the concerns were raised by the pockets of a lot of time enough to see how they feel as the cost and as china's one on your site of the lord of this invents off a bit percent of the Anaheim chimes of awe of the not-where is the hands of a arson is five days, the site has reported a and handy for the state has no list support that kind of caution and on-smile that-that's exactly that inside that visibly owns as I'm not out of the destination of listener 1¢ in may and scientists and nine of the house to house to do what's how the drive is the data is the data on@news agencies studies and then where are the mindset is not enough and he driven tennis as a percent cost and others know that in the system 8-1 sessions later on as to the report is being used in an irony of this side of the four other ones of the Serbians at this time as the standard as portability will save as a result of the facts ……

…in rule 12D is suspended. The sergeant at arms may send forth the donuts. The members may eat. Representative McNeill, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman’s recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t mind competing with donuts one bit. Before anybody asks why I’m standing up, I represent a large portion of Moore County land wise. And my constituents will be definitely impacted by this bill. Although I was not born in Moore County, my grandparents are from Moore County, lived in Moore County. They both lived their lives there and died there. My father and all his siblings were born in Moore County. So I have a vested interest in Moore County. I know the Deaner’s Study has already been mentioned here, that it was a 400 page study. But I’ll take you to what the executive summary of that study says, and this is Deaner’s words, conclusions and recommendations. After reviewing other studies and experiences in oil and gas producing states, Deaner believes that hydraulic fracturing can be done safely, as long as the right protections are in place. It will be important to have these measures in place before issuing permits for hydraulic fracturing in North Carolina shale formations. I believe this bill does that. I thought we loved study bills here in this House, and that’s basically what this is. This bill does allow anything to go forward, too, but it has a lot of studies in it. And if I’m elected again, I assure you, in 2015 when this comes back before this House, if I don’t feel like it is a good bill. If I don’t feel like the safeguards that need to be in it are in it, I will vote against it. But I think it is a good bill. I think it is good to go forward and study this issue. It is a very important issue for this state. And I think it can be done and it can be done safely with the right protections in place. I plan to vote for it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman’s recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a bill that truly could impact the future of our entire state. I represented McDowell County and the Catawba River Basin in the droughts of 2004. We also had the floods of 2004. So I know there’s a lot of water issues that can change in a district in a few months period. But we drained Lake James down to the run of the river in that drought. Our water tables went down in the Catawba River Basin where wells were drying up everywhere. Our groundwater is extremely important in my region of the country. We have set about after that drought, doing a study on the aquifers and underground water resources of this state. They are extremely important to the futures of our communities. And whatever we do, we do not need to rush ahead. My concern about getting too far is how much expertise do we really have in North Carolina? We have not done this before, and we need to learn from states and communities that have. So we need to take a lot of precaution and understand this. Representative Pittman said that he had seen on TV a story where 18 studies said there was no water contamination from underground fracking. I hope he would share those resources, because those are certainly not the resources I am reading and hearing from. If members… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the chair. Would it be possible to ask the donut eaters to quiet it down? Seriously, I cannot hear Representative Queen’s remarks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair has hit the gavel. The members will please enjoy their donuts in silence. The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again I just urge the members to challenge their sources of information, wait for credible studies… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to know if Representative Queen will yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Queen have you read the Buffalo, University of Buffalo Report on marcellus shale? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have not, Mr. …

Speaker : If you have read the Inter-study on Marshall Cell ? ]in North Carolina? Speaker changes: I have not, Mr. MCmere. Speaker changes: The gentleman here, you? Speaker changes: Have you read the EPA report on the prevailing [chair?] Speaker changes: I have not. Speaker changes: Thank you Mr. Speaker changes: Gentlemen Speaker changes: There is a library over at the states that I visited a few weeks ago, that astounded me how many I have not read.[sounds in the background] but what I do know [laughter in the background]is that [xFranklin?] uses poisons to extract natural gas and they dump it in the ground , it goes somewhere, I got that much straight. So in a way I just couldn’t resist challenging the sources of information and the level of expertise that we want to trust when we start down the road to the plausible solution of an absolutely essential resource water. And ground water more than any other is important to North Carolina so I urge your caution even if you could [x afford?] this, I urge your open minded attention to the studies and the sources of information that are helping us understand this issue as we go forward. Thank you. Speaker changes: Representative Storm, please take your papers. Speaker changes: Debate the bill? Speaker changes: The gentleman is reckoning us. Speaker changes: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, as I sit here today and I hear all the concern, I talked to a number of you and you think sincerely some of you are just opposed to natural gas as xxx. And I respect that; I can understand that. Though we made a decision as a body of moving forward, of pushing forward given the information, today’s sitting, those 76 the House is touched may I add? I have done a number good things, it’s in the number of these questionable number to come back would pull the bait from the Managing Energy Commission. And Representative Conney , let the Managing Energy Commission do the work of the bait. We will have a bill relating to natural gas as extraction or two, every year, even beyond 2015, this is a huge task to take on in the state of North Carolina. I don’t think anyone really thought how big a task it is. The part of that has that xxx study groups come back with the information. We have got changes, we have a lot of information that they have already gathered just waiting for us to act on. So we are moving North Carolina in the right direction. I understand that we have got some kind out there, we also understand to protect our community .See those 76 does exactly that. Controversial piece of the day, is certainty. It reminds folks we are all moving 14500 every day is our planning. We certainly could make or may be xx would come back any given time they debated forever. So we have to have a day, we have to have a beginning and an end. I want to remind you it still goes back for a final decision . These are the studies really, really important as we move forward, we should know how to charge the right service tax, so we to make sure our local communities are involved in that and impacted, this is part of the process. This is going to be taking place over the next several years as we move forward. So I ask you today to vote in favor of Clinical 76, unless the new bill is going to become the fourth as we move the North Carolina in future to be part of the independence and after asking you to vote for this bill. Speaker changes: Representative Collins. Speaker changes: Why? Speaker changes: the bill. Speaker changes: you may proceed. Speaker changes : A lot of comments, a lot of fears and other things being expressed here. One person mentioned that we may not have the expertise in North Carolina to do this; may be that is one reason that the people who are promoting this move towards extraction of natural gas, most House members and Senate members have visited multiple states to find out how the states that have been doing this for decades are doing it. This is not something we just came up with and haven’t investigated. Also it has been mentioned that we need to pay attention to studies. In fact, I have read some of the studies I might seek counsel because he is

force me to do that early on. And I would say that we do make our decisions based on studies rather than on emails of people who have been scared into something by whatever activist group has gotten a petition to them or whatever. It's interesting to me that the people who are supporting this, and the people are running with it have looked at multiple studies and read them and, again, have visited onsite locations where this is actually going on. I happen to know and be a very a good friend with one of the Senators who sponsored the bill, and I would say to you across the aisle, you want a go-slow approach, then you should like this bill as it's currently constructed. My Senator buddy, I think the word he used the other day when I had lunch with them was “gutted.” His bill has been gutted as far as he's concerned. So if you like a conservative, go-slow, let's not jump into this thing approach, you should like Senate Bill 76 in its current form. I'll simply say if we're gonna react in fear to everything that might possibly happen regardless of what the studies say, and admittedly some have already admitted they haven't read any of them, then, you know, we'd still be riding a horse and buggy today and not have automobiles and airplanes and a lot of other things that we've had if we were just gonna do away with even considering something because it might have some type of harmful effect, but we're not sure and we're not willing to read studies or anything to find out, but it might happen. Therefore we're not gonna do it. You know, I don't want to take the Chicken Little approach to economic prosperity or anything else in North Carolina. I love the environment as much as anybody. I've lived in this state all my life, but I have read some of those studies that show that this can be done properly so that it doesn't destroy our drinking water. Again, the current vision of -- the current version of Senate Bill 76 is a go-slow approach, and I would ask that you support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Jones, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will try to brief, you know. Sometimes when we get debating these issues on the floor, I think that maybe people say things that they don't exactly mean or the way that it sounds. A little while ago, my friend Rep. Carney, and I have great respect for her and she's not one that generally makes remarks that I would deem to be inflammatory. But she said perhaps in a future election there might be people running for this office that care about water. And I don't believe that she meant to imply that the people who are voting yes on this bill today don't care about water. I want to state for the record that I care very much about water, and I believe that my colleagues that will vote yes care very much about water as well. I'm a loyal guy. I like Rep. Pittman, and I'm not only a native North Carolinian, but I'm a native of my home county. My family and drink from a well. My neighbors do the same. Many people that I represent do. Our county and our area of the state will be impacted by hydraulic fracturing. It's been said that this is somehow changing things, breaking as promise that was made, putting this on a fast-track. When I read the date on this bill, it says March 1, 2015. It's almost two years away. That's what was said to start with -- 2015. And unless I'm mistaken, I believe the General Assembly will be back here for the short session in 2014. Changes can be made if needed. I think this is entirely consistent with what was said and what was done last year. And, ladies and gentlemen, we're all here as representatives, and I understand that we represent different constituents, different districts, different areas of the state, and you're here not only to vote your own conscience but to represent the people that you were elected to represent, and I respect you whether you vote yes or no on this bill. And I do believe that you care about water. I'll tell you that in the last election, my political opponents hammered me about this particular issue. It was one of the main issues that was put out there to hammer me. Sixty-four percent of the people in my county agree that apparently overall I was doing the right thing. Maybe you might argue they would disagree on this issue. But I will tell you it was first and foremost an issue that my political opponents wanted to use in categorizing me in my last campaign. As a speaker, I believe Rep. Stone said I understand there are people that seem to in our society oppose any efforts for energy exploration. I don't see too many opponents to energy use. They seem to be perfectly happy with us continuing to buy to our energy [CUTS OFF]

From [opac] or wherever else. Also heard a comment earlier that maybe we need to learn from other states and other areas that have done it. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we’ve got about 66 years that we can look at that people have been doing this. And I do deal with facts, not rhetoric and I know that this is an issue that many on the left in particular and many in the media oppose and I can assure you if there were some confirmed studies out there where people’s drinking water had been poisoned because of hydraulic fracturing, it would be hanging from every rooftop, it would be in every media, it would be in every magazine, every newspaper, every television station. We would know it very well and I haven’t seen those facts yet. So, for that reason I will vote Yes today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute to Senate Bill 76 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. 68 having voted in the affirmative and 33 in the negative, the House committee substitute to Senate Bill 76 has passed its second reading and without objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection having been raised, the bill will be taken up for third reading on Monday evening. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A motion with respect to the calendar page 1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the motion is to re-calendar Senate Bill 325, short title. “Wake County School Board Districts” for Monday but with a short explanation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to explain the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The explanation is that a couple of members of the Wake delegation have to be absent today and would like to vote on this but the delegation has agreed that if we re-calendar for Monday, there would be no objection the third reading from them. And I would just enquire if anyone else would object the third reading Monday if we were to accede to this request. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not knowing whether or not this has been known to the minority leader beforehand. Representative Hollo, I don’t wanna put you on the spot but I do have a question regarding the apparent commitment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know what the commitments were made from, of course the Wake County delegation but. [SPEAKER CHANGES] From the wake county delegation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] From the wake county delegation, if they made that commitment, that’s fine but I do know we have members who are not here today. They may wanna put some objection forward but certainly we’ll poll with them and proceed with Wake County’s desires if that’s what they wanna do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and Gentlemen, just as a technical matter with the objection on third reading for Senate Bill 76 and a bill we’re about to take up on tax reform that I expect lengthy debate, it is the intent of the chair to have both those bills as well as the Wake County bill voted out on Monday night. If there’s objection to the Wake County bill on Monday night, we will recess or we will adjourn at midnight and we’ll start the Tuesday session or we will adjourn at 11:30 or whatever time we complete the debate and we will come back just after midnight to dispense with that because the Tuesday calendar is absolutely essential that it stay open for appropriations so that the effect of objecting to that on a third reading will be a midnight session. Representative Jackson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess, to speak on the gentleman’s motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was the one that made that representation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was the one that made that representation to Representative Stam that we would not object on third reading. However, I’d like to inform the body the details of that representation. It was made yesterday. My eleven year old son had elementary school graduation this morning at 10 AM and I really wanted to go to that but I couldn’t get any response. So, I’m here. So, I came and when I made that representation that I wouldn’t object, that was in order so I could make something that day. I don’t plan to object on Monday night, but I would like the opportunity to be heard at that time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill will be debated fully and to the extent, any member wishes to, on Monday night. But, again, with all due respect to the members, Tuesday has to be freed up to complete the budget and.

…appropriations meeting. So the only way we can do that and be compliant would be to take the vote at midnight and then we would recess until later in the day. But it is the intent of the Chair to have full debate on Monday night, Representative Jackson. Representative Floyd please state your purpose. Then the motion is to re-calendar House Bill 998. Sorry about that. The Senate Bill 325 to Monday. All in favor vote, “Aye.” All opposed vote, “No.” The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 97 having voted in the affirmative, three in the negative, the motion passes. House Bill 998, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute number two for House Bill 998, a bill entitled, “An Act to Reduce Individual and Business Tax Rates and to Expand the Sales Tax Base to Include Services Commonly Taxed in Other States.” General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I’d like to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may debate the bill and in the process of debate the gentleman may have staff available. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House thank you for the chance to speak to you today on House Bill 998. Tax reform is not an event it is a process. The Tax Simplification and Reduction Act is another important step forward in reforming North Carolina’s outdated tax system. We are continuing the work we started by reforming a broken Worker’s Compensation system, curbing frivolous lawsuits, reforming our unemployment tax structure, repealing the death tax and instituting more than a billion dollars in tax cuts during the last budget cycle. This plan puts North Carolina on track for further tax reform efforts. It’s a major step forward in the ongoing process and long overdue need to address tax reform. It begins the important process of repealing tax loopholes and preferential tax treatments. Under this plan that you have before you, the working families of North Carolina will have more dollars in their pocket and our state will become more competitive for job creation. For those who are interested, The Tax Foundation predicts that implementation of this plan would take North Carolina’s tax ranking from seventh worst to 19th best tax climate in the nation. Under this plan two-thirds of North Carolina tax filers will see an average personal income reduction if 20 percent. This plan cuts personal income taxes for each and every citizen who pays them in our state. It creates a flat, fair, 5.9 percent tax rate making us competitive in the Southeast and in the nation. It helps low and middle income earners by doubling the size of the standard deductions. The most vulnerable North Carolinians will retain an effective zero percent personal income tax rate and North Carolina will continue to have one of the most generous standard deductions in the country. It more than doubles the child credit for low and middle income North Carolinians by increasing it from 100 to $250 per dependent. It protects senior citizens and families by keeping important exemptions in place.

plan does not tax Social security. This plan keeps deductions for mortgage, interest and property tax. And it allows deductions for charitable contributions. This plan cuts business taxes by more than 900 million over the next 5 years. It cuts the franchise tax. And as I said it keeps its central items from having imposed upon them the state sales tax rate. Food and medicine would not be taxed under this plan that is before you now. We do expand the sales tax base. But we expand it in areas where it is already been collected, remitted and the record keeping in place. Speaker changes. There is going to be a lot of debate later today. About this plan much of it that I have heard, I would like to speak to, now and perhaps save a bit of time in a revotal process. First of all I am proud to stand here and advocate for a flat 5. 9 percent tax rate. I believe that the current tax system which leaves our state with the highest tax rate in the Southeast for not just for millionaires. Because you are going to hear about them later today. But for anybody making over 60.000 dollars a year. 7.75 percent, the highest rate in the SouthEast. I believe 5.9 percent is a fair rate. It does not penalize those who are trying to make more and advance themselves in the economic world. I think you will find, and I can produce chart after chart if that is the direction the house wants to take. But I want you to know that the crafters of this plan are acutely aware that there are those in the state who thru hard work, gifts from God whatever put them in the place that they are in do have more income than others in this state. We consider that in the preparation of this plan and I feel confident that this plan will provide tax relief. And leave more money in the pockets of hardworking families. Of hardworking North Carolinians. I will respectfully ask for your support on this vote today. To my knowledge this is the first time and overall of this size has been actually debated on the floor of this house in most of our lifetimes. What we are about to do today is a good step forward. It is a good step forward that helps the people in this state. It helps those that are here now. It helps attract others that might want to come in and create more jobs. I respectfully ask for your support of house bill 998. Thank you Mr. Speaker For what purpose does representative Hall arise. ? Speak on the bill. Representive Hall right now is the speaker of the bill. Speaker changes. Thank you Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the house as well North Carloliniens who might be listening now. I understand that this is an effort at tax reform in North Calrolina. And the important thing is to make sure we have transparency and everyone understands. And we have heard this and in the record from our finance commitee meetings as well. Tax reform has happen in several bills since we have been in session. And I raised the objection then and I am raising the point in your memory now. You may recall we raised the tax on 990.000 North Carolinians when we removed the earned income tax credit from there bill.

And these are the working families of North Carolina, and at the time I raised the objection in Finance Committee and when the bill came to the floor, and I said then “We’re doing tax reform right now.” The response was “Well we’ll consider it later on when we do the comprehensive tax reform.” I said “No, you’re changing the baseline, you’re exempting people from relief and raising their taxes; this is not fair,” and again the response was “We’ll consider it later on.” Those 990 thousand North Carolinians who got a tax increase when we removed the earned income tax credit, they were supposed to be able to be considered and have that considered for them when this comprehensive tax reform was done. You’ll notice you didn’t hear Representative Lewis mention earned income tax credit, didn’t mention those 990 thousand North Carolinians, didn’t mention the previous promises, although not made by him individually but made regarding the passing of the earned income tax credit. So let’s be clear: We gave 990 thousand North Carolinians a tax increase already this session, so this is not comprehensive tax reform. Need to lay that bill down beside this one or on top of this one before we talk about that. Again we sought to make a modification to the level playing field when we decided we’d give an estate tax break, taking more money out of the revenue stream of the state for people who didn’t need it, and maybe they did need it, but certainly not any more than the working families who were eligible for that earned income tax credit. So 990 thousand individuals get a tax increase by removing the earned income tax credit, and then we decided 23 to 25 families would get an estate tax exemption for their estates worth over five million dollars that got transferred from generation to generation, and so those folks got a heck of a – and that’s the “h” word; I probably would use a different one, but present company excepted and knowing that there are fragile minds who are listening but certainly should be, but that’s a heck of a tax cut right there, but we reserved that for 23 families in North Carolina. Ya’ll get the big tax cut. Now remember, we’re supposed to be comprehensive. So now we come to the comprehensive bill. Do we remember we gave the tax increase to the 990 working families? No, we don’t remember that. We don’t even mention it so we can’t say we’re hypocritical. We didn’t mention it. Do we go back and say “Hey, look: You folks who got that big tax cut, you 23 individuals who got this 50 million dollar plus tax cut, we’re going to have to consider that when we do this tax plan now”? You can’t get two tax cuts. That’s not going to be fair to North Carolinians. Certainly not going to be fair to the 990 thousand North Carolinians who got a tax increase, but we don’t mention that either. We’re all sitting here as if it’s not even raining outside. So now we say this is comprehensive, this is fair. Well let’s talk about who benefits under this. It’s a tax increase on 95 percent of North Carolinians. Those working families, some of them working poor now – and note we’ve come through two recessions recently, so those folks who maybe in your mind’s eye are not working poor or working families who are struggling, they are. They’re your constituents, they’re in your counties, and your county has suffered as a result of that earned income tax credit being denied to those 990 thousand North Carolinians. Representative Lewis said “Well essential items are not going to be taxed,” and he told you what in the bill sponsor’s mind essential items were. Food and medicine. I want you to think, are those the only essential items or items you consider essential in your life and in your family’s life, or in your constituent’s life. If so, you probably want to vote for this bill. Yes, this is the first time a bill that overhauls the tax system to this extent was brought to the floor, but again I caution you that this is not comprehensive tax reform. We just talked about those North Carolinians that were given that tax increase, those 990 thousand, this session, and we talked about those that got the 50 million dollar tax cut this session, so to call this comprehensive

I've addressed those two items. I think it's disingenuous on our part, and certainly not a transparent representation to the people of North Carolina of what we're doing here. Now I realize I don't have the votes. It was clear when the Earned Income Tax Credit came forward, and we said look, don't do this to these working families of North Carolina. They're struggling. They can barely make it. They need that little money. It's going to be put back in the economy. All the studies say that is the best dollar that will be put out there, and it will recirculate in the community. It fell on deaf ears. The same thing happened when we said, you're putting a hole in the budget if you give away the $50 million dollars to people who don't need it. Then those who need it the most will have to suffer. And sure enough, this is shifting the tax burden again so the 1% at the top get the highest benefit under this plan, and 95% of North Carolinians ultimately have a tax increase. I know, and I understand that people have determined that they can just ignore virtually a million North Carolinians and say to them, "I know you're paying more in taxes, but wink wink, you're really getting a tax cut. I know we've taken the Earned Income Tax Credit away, but wink wink, you really still have it. I mean, it really is in this Comprehensive Tax Reform." So I believe we may be fooling ourselves, but you're not fooling the person who has to pay more taxes. You're not fooling those North Carolinians who are working families, who have to pay more on their taxes because they don't have the Earned Income Tax Credit. They'll see it when they prepare their taxes. They'll see it when they pay their taxes. [Speaker changes] Mr. Speaker, to send forward an amendment. [Speaker changes] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read [speaker changes] Representative Hall moves to amend the bill on page 2 lines 8-32 by rewriting the line to read, [Speaker changes] Representative Hall, you're recognized to explain your amendment. [Speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. this amendment does two things. And as I spoke about it, I think they're what we need to do, keeping in mind what shape our state is in and how battered our economy has been, and how much our citizens have had to sacrifice and suffer. They spent down. They used up resources and they're barely hanging on, depending on us. This would maintain the tax rate at 7.75% for our millionaires and above, something they're already paying. And it would increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to 14% from the 5% and again, the 14% is of the federal amount that they qualify for. It would increase it from the 5% they currently have, until we pass that last bill. It will increase that to 14% of the federal, and it would extend this for five years to give us time to hopefully benefit and move forward in job creation in North Carolina. I'd ask your support on this. This is revenue neutral to the tax plan. It will not require any additional revenue calculations to be done. And I'd ask your support on it. [Speaker changes] Thank you, Representative Hall. Representative Blust, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker changes] To debate the amendment [speaker changes] You're recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker changes] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank Representative Hall for at least in the first part of his amendment, acknowledging that tax rate on North Carolinians on the vast majority of them has been too high, and endorsing the 5.9%. So I commend and thank him for that. Had I known about this in advance, I would have done so during my opening remarks. However, I'm going to ask you to oppose this amendment. You see, as Representative Hall knows, the tax bill that is before you today - despite what you may have, depsite the direction I'm certain this debate will now go - deals with the living. The fact that we have chose not to tax the dead with the Death Tax, I don't think was really a relevant lead-up to the introduction of this amendment. Representative Hall, if he were to be asked - and I did not interrupt his remarks to do this - he would tell you that the average Earned Income Tax Credit paid out

[SPEAKER CHANGES] Was at 5% of the federal tax credit was at one hundred dollars, and most of that was a refundable part, which means, since it's based on the federal tax credit, it's not really a refund entirely of taxes paid. If this amendment had been based on only a non-refundable part, it would have been about forty dollars a year. The tax plan you have before you un-amended, provides, at the twenty thousand dollar a year level, over forty dollars a year worth of relief. So I would submit to you, despite the remarks that you heard, the least among us, the least of these were considered in the comprehensive tax reform bill that is before you. This amendment which seeks to reinstate the 7.75%, the highest rate in the South-East, on income, and penalty on success, a penalty on small business owners. It is not an incentive for people to want to better themselves, to reach that point. It is not an incentive to attract businesses to this state. It is not an incentive to help people move ahead. I would ask you that you join me in defeating this amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does representative Hall rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak a second time on an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to speak a second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I hope there is no doubt in anybody's mind that I could probably talk as loud as Representative Lewis, or even louder, and I don't think that's going to convince you that my [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Lewis rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry to the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State you inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do I need to offer an apology? Did I speak inappropriately into the mic? If so, I would like to do that at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think your point is made. Not at this time Representative Lewis. Proceed Representative Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. What I think is important is what we have done here is said, on a marginal rate, if you were paying 6% on a marginal rate, we move you down as the working folks in North Carolina, and the working poor, we move you down to 5.9%. And if you're a million dollars and above, you go from 7.75 to 5.9%. Then we say, "You're going to have to pay more for things you need: food and medicine." Those other categories. You're going to have to pay more for that , more than your tax break could be, and you get a tenth of a percentage point versus 7.75 goes down to a point and a half or more. As a millionaire obviously, you have thousands of dollars or more to spend for the additional expenses you have, for the use of these services that are being taxed. Working family or working poor, what do you have? You've got to have one tenth on the marginal rate to spend on the same necessities. So, yes, you get a tax break, except that it costs you more to operate, and you don't have enough to cover that additional expense. And yes, if you're in that one percent, and you're getting the greater share of this tax rate, yes, you have much more to spend on on those expenditures. So, I'm just saying let's be clear about it. We're giving the majority this tax rate. 95% of North Carolinians pay more, a few other people pay less, they just happen to be in that millionaire class. And, if that's what we're doing, let's go ahead and say it. I think Representative Lewis said it. We don't want to penalize success. Well, we don't want to penalize our citizens either, who work hard everyday, many of whom are employed. It sounded as if there was an implication that anyone who received or earned income tax credit was unemployed or was avoiding jobs when we had many more people in North Carolina applying for and qualified for the jobs that are available than jobs that are available. In some cases, up to ten and more persons per job opening applying. So, again, let's not

Let's not ?? those who are working and can't find jobs that meet their skill set and/or can't be employed. I think that's unfair, if we are gonna have this debate or discussion let's have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does representative Blust rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] See if representative Hall yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, would you yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I'd certainly be glad to yield when I am finished. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He does not yield at this time, representative Blust. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As I said, let's just be clear. I am all in favor of millionaires, all the millionaires. I know personally called millionaire and said Hey, This is a good deal for me. I want you to go ahead and pass it. No, Obviously I don't know any millionaires personally so I didn't get a phone call. And the same number called me and said Hey, This is a bad deal for me and I don't want you to pass it.I live in North Carolina and leave my fortune in North Carolina. I came here because this is one of the greatest places in the nation to live, work and do business. You got the highest average over the last 10 years from size selection magazines to be a place for businesses come. Your tax situation must be more than just competitive. You continue to test out that at top. So I certainly wanna stay here, I am not going anywhere. I am just loving it as it is. Of course I didn't their call either but as Representative Hager said I read some articles. I read some studies. I don't know if some of you did or not. I didn't go over and see state library though. I know I didn't read everything in there. But we know time after time why this happens. So again I'd ask that you pass this amendment. Let's have true comprehensive tax reform. Let's let someone other than the top one percent to have some legitimate benefit from this bill and it won't increase the annual revenue that has to be generated. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does representative Blust rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall yield now that he has completed his remarks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does representative Hall yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd be glad to accommodate Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall does yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative Hall and I am just wondering because I think there is an issue in this particular bill that's not getting as much as attention as it deserves. I have just noticed that some of the common ?? wondering if it would affect your remarks at all if you factored in what's called the Zero Bracket amount. And do you understand how that will even more than the 5.9 percent raise which looks like it's down very slightly from 6 percent but when you figure in the Zero Bracket amount, the very bottom carves out. An amount that there is no tax rate applied to at all means the 6 percent currently would be applied to a much smaller number which means in affect this particular tax plan is providing a lot more relive to those in 6 percent bracket now then ??. Appear from first glance, do you understand the zero bracket amount and would it change your analysis at all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The zero bracket amount won't not change my analysis. It won't change the fact that 95 percent under this bill, 95 percent of North Carolinians get a tax increase. So you can use whatever analysis you want for that. Going to very bottom and saying the poorest of these, the absolute very poors in order to achieve that benefit for us to say that. That does not change my analysis. 95 percent of North Carolinians are going to get a tax increase under this and that continues to be the case even with those the brackets. So I appreciate the fact that the very poor, the absolute very poors will get some relief. But it still ends up with 95 percent of North Carolinians getting a tax increase under this bill and that is just a fact. With those brackets or not, that's what this bill does. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does representative Blust rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To yield for a follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does representative Hall yield? It'd be a pleasure representative Blust. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, I am having a hard time following where you are getting your facts to say that 95 percent will get a tax increase when for merit filing jointly, This bill is taking the first 12 thousand earned and applying zero tax to it. It differs depending on your filing status what that zero is but it's not raising the sales tax. Aren't you engaging in a bit..

?? with not accurate facts to say 95 percent of people are going to get a tax increase when it is probably maybe not the reverse to that but I would say more then the majority are going to see taxes lower than to this bill. Speaker changes Well again I am correct. And I m going to take the same standards as representative of Hager. I have read the studies and articles and I am going to say this again. So everybody gets it straight and whoever is going to quote it or write it. 95 percent of North Carolinians are going to get an tax increase. And you cannot shift the idea, that saying well just because I am going to charge you less on a margin or rate. But I am going to charge you more for all your necessities except for food and medicine. That those taxes don't count as well than the calculations. So, however you want to try to spin it at the end of the day this 95 percent of North Carolinians that pays these additional taxes they will know when they keep track. They will know that you have given them this tax increase for the benefit of folks who do not need it. I am sure many of them probably did not ask for. I am sure many of them did. We are not doing a good service to the citizens of North Carolina. Again, I ask that you support this amendment. Speaker change Those members not speaking on this amendment, would you please cut your light off. A speaker Representative Lucas arise Representative Blast with yield for question Representative Blast will you yield. I am sure you will when you get there. Yes I yield Representative Blast in your ?? to representative Paul I think I heard you say that in the bill. That a married couple earning 12.000 Dollars or less a year would pay no taxes. Is that correct ? Speaker changes That is correct. There is absolutely zero tax rate applied to the very. The first 12.000 of income for a married filing joint taxpayer. Speaker changes Second question Do you happen to have a percentage of couples who are married with a joint income of 12.000 dollars or less ? Speaker change I do not have that before me, but I bet it is a fairly sizable amount. There are a lot of people in the lower-income levels, just having dealt with this issue myself and trying to prepare a bill and prepare for this. And looking at the amount of income that comes from those in the 6 percent bracket looking at cutting that. It is a sizable amount of income, because there is a whole lot of people that, and I cannot out of the top of my head tell you what the average income is, but there is a whole lot of people in those brackets. And this bill, and I don't agree with everything in this bill. But one of the most salable, one of the best aspects of it is the zero bracket approach which is also in the Senator Clodfelter and Senator Hartsell proposal in the senate. So that is designed to help those most at the very bottom of the incomescale. And so many of the analysis that you hear about throwing around are just not taking that into account in the analysis. And it troubles me to hear somebody say, 95 percent of the people are going to get a tax increase, when that absolutely is not the case. And you cannot point to me the provision in the bill that would leave anyone to have a tax increase. There is a view services, there are additional services that will be taxed, but for someone to have a tax increase on those, they would have to have, probably have a fleet of automobiles, a thousand of them that they have serviced twice a month for a year. To built up that much income from the additional sales tax base increase to overcome what they are gaining from the zero tax bracket. So, I do wish and I think that there is some legitimate criticisms that can be made to the bill. But I wish we would keep things on a factual basis and to spent some ?? Change Speaker Representative Collins arise See if representative Blust will due for question Representative Blust I yield Speaker change Representative Blast I am not sure what was implied in that last question, but that 12.000 zero base. Do I understand that does not just apply for people just making 12.000 dollars or making 20 25, 30 or 40 thousand would still benefit from that is that correct ? Speaker change That is right. It is just the first 12.000 for married filing joint. I think it is 6.000 for individuals. 8.000 for hen of households. That does not get taxed at all. So that lowers those marge, actually lowers. the effective rate will be lower.

Lower than the tax rate that's listed in the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So in effect, that will lower the effective tax rate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That for. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lower income people much more than for higher income people. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's right. It's a very good break for those at the bottom. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative, I'm sorry, for what purpose does Representative Brawley arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wonder if Representative Lewis would yield to a series of questions Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis heard the assertion made earlier that 95% of North Carolinians would receive a tax increase under the provisions of House Bill 998. I was wondering if that's true. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir, it is not true. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If one evaluates the bill using octal or hexadecimal arithmetic does the bill come up with the result as described? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep, for what purpose does Representative Michaux rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your point of inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are we on the amendment or on the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe the debate on the amendment was to justify the amendment on ninety ei-, five percent of North Carolina tax payers would receive a tax increase. And that was asserted in the debate on the amendment and that's the issue I'm addressing sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For the time being we're on the amendment, yes sir. Proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I apologize. I couldn't hear what he asked. Or maybe I was breathing too loud to hear it, but could he repeat his. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I asked if. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If one did the math for 998 using octal base eight or hexadecimal base 10 if he would come up with the results that were proposed in debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that Representative. It is based on all of the information that we have from our physical staff that is absolutely not correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there any system of mathematics of which you're aware that would say this bill would raise taxes on 95% of North Carolinians? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The only body of knowledge that I'm aware of that would make that claim would be the talking points that have been passed out to fight against this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that enlightenment. Representative Jones for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask if Representative Lewis would yield for question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Lewis. This is, this has to do with Representative Hall's amendment that would take the marginal tax rate or, or keep it at 7.75% which is the highest tax rate in the south. And I wanted to ask you if certain businesses, certain categories of businesses in this state would be taxed at the individual tax rate, businesses that we need to create more jobs in this state. Would that be the case and if you could elaborate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that inquiry Representative Jones. The answer, the short answer would be yes. The longer answer would be that many of the, in fact most of of the small businesses, the ones who have continued to employ people, not lay them off, produce good jobs, are organized in such a way as an LLC or an S-corp. And all of the shown profit that their company makes flows through directly to their personal income tax statement. Which means that in effect you would create a great disproportional incentive for people to want to make money, because as that money because as that money would flow through to their tax returns, it would be taxed if they exceeded the million dollar cap that the gentleman from Durham has proposed. They would be taxed at the highest rate in the sou-, in the south east. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Dollar arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of The House, I sympathize some with my Democratic colleagues over there who are offering, Representative Hall who's offering this amendment. They're not accustomed to cutting taxes so this is uncharted territory. They don't know how to deal with it. But let me tell you, let me simplify the debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is about lowering. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will not yield. At this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose, for what purpose, for what purpose Representative ?? do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, this ?? from Representative Dollar is not on the amendment. I would ask Representative Hall's amendment was about earned income tax credit and holding the millionaires to the old tax rate. And this discussion that Representative Dollar just had is not at all related to that. I would ask that.

will he be ruled out of order? Now, we stay on the amendment, sir. Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Dollar is on the amendment. Please proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. As I was saying. Guilty dog bar... Anyway. Let me talk about marginal tax rates. I can simplify this whole debate. Every forum that I have been to for the last, probably 10, 15 years, a forum that I was at, that I was a co-presenter with Senator Clodfelter last year here in Raleigh, we talked about all kinds of tax reform. One of the top issues for North Carolina is lowering marginal tax rates. Every forum that I've been to. When I hear Dr. Mike Walden talk, that everyone recognizes as an expert in this state, one of the things he talks about North Carolina needs to do, lower the marginal tax rates. The Hunt issue, of the Hunt Institute for Emerging Issues. A few years ago, those members who were here, most of the General Assembly, went over there to the McKimmon Center. The place was stacked full of people, they had folks from the Feds, they had experts from all across the country, they had Steve Forbes there, he was sort of the main speaker. Everybody talked about at or near the top of their list, lower marginal tax rates. That's what North Carolina needs to do. And that's what this bill does. This bill lowers the marginal tax rate. It gives us a flat tax rate. It helps people at the bottom, and it also helps to empower people who want to invest in North Carolina. People who want to come here and start businesses, expand businesses. That's what we need. We need jobs. We know what the past policies have brought. The past policies brought us record amount to debt in this state, and past policies brought us unemployment rates higher than the national average. Now is the time to address the top issue that we know that the experts on, on almost the entire spectrum that we've heard about for years, they said lower the marginal tax rates. This is the historic bill to lower our marginal tax rates, get our economy going. So I recommend you defeat this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. For what purpose does Representative Moore rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I move that the gentleman's amendment do lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Second. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. You heard the motion and the second. This is, ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is the motion for the amendment to lie upon the table. Give the members a moment to get to your seats. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will block the machine and record the vote. 66 is voting in the affirmative, 32 in the negative. Motion to lie upon the table passed. We are back on the bill. Representative Collins. For what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Briefly debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. You are recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. You know, it's interesting to me, I'm astounded too by the 95 percent figure, because when we looked at numbers that staff had actually presented of families and individuals, and people of all tax rates and all income amounts, were actually getting a break and tax decrease by this bill. I do understand, however, why some folks might be against tax breaks, and I understand what the history of North Carolina has been. When I got to this chamber in 2011, we had just had the General Assembly before us raise the tax on everybody by adding 1 percent to our sales tax. And over a lot of, over a lot of crying and dissent, and shouting, and the sky is going to fall, and everything else, we actually took that 1 percent sales tax off of all the citizens of North Carolina. So I don't understand why there's such a hoot and holler now about adding sales tax to some services. Also, the same General Assembly in 2009, when we weren't in control, put a sur-tax on people's income. In other words, were going to

We like taxes so much we’re going to tax the tax. And, of course we’re going to do that on wealthy people who need to be punished because they’re making so much income. Now how much is so much income that you need to be paying tax on your tax? $60,000, if you’re a single taxpayer. You’re making so much money that not only are we going to charge you income tax, we’re going to charge you tax on your income tax. I was very proud to be a part of the General Assembly in 2011 that started historic tax reform by giving our taxpayers the biggest tax break they’d ever gotten in our history, a $1 billion tax decrease by taking away that one percent sales tax and by taking away that tax on the tax. This is another bill which is going to give people tax relief in North Carolina and that’s why I stand behind it. I do know some millionaires. Of course, I’m in the financial practice so I deal with people on all levels. But some of the millionaires I know, I’ll give you an example. I know a couple that’s a millionaire. They both worked hard all their lives. One of them worked in the school system all of the person’s life. The spouse worked for a phone company all of their life. But they were smart with their money and saved their money and invested their money and those people don’t need to be paying income taxes at a high rate on their savings and on their investments. Those are everyday people who worked hard and were smart in North Carolina and yet we’ve penalized those people with the highest income taxes in the Southeast on the earnings on their income, on the interest they’re paid on their CDs and that type of thing. So, we are helping people of all levels by performing this tax decrease. I was proud to be part of the tax decrease in 2011, I’m proud to be a part of the tax decrease in 2013 and I firmly support this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. For what purpose does Representative Graham arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does Representative Lewis yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker, I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, if I have 20,000 families in Robeson County that make say $15,000 a year total household income, and they have let’s say a 1989 Chevy Cavalier. And they have a lot of mechanical problems with that vehicle and they have to repeatedly take that vehicle to the shop and have repairs done, would they be charged a tax to have the maintenance performed on the car as a part of the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that not a tax increase? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, Representative Graham, if you’ll give me a moment, I was trying to follow along and I’m doing the math on the fly. Just so I can get further clarification, Mr. Speaker. What was the level of income that you used sir? I just didn’t hear you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m just trying to use the average income in my county for a working family of four, $15,000. And they take their vehicle to the shop and it’s a $200 charge for that service on that car. How much tax would they need to pay on that bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, we’re going to figure out how much the tax decrease that they would have gotten on the income tax side would be and then offset that by what the… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker… [SPEAKER CHANGES] …tax would be on the labor that you have asked about. Because when you asked your question you said, “Is it a tax increase?” I acknowledge that there would be tax on the service but since you were obviously referring to the net tax impact of the bill I think we need a few minutes to actually do the math to get an honest answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A follow-up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up Representative Graham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Under our present tax structure, Mr. Representative, is that a tax that we pay currently? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe you asked if they spent $200 on the repair, so I’ll assume you meant that’s just on the actual labor and not on the parts which is of course… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, that’s not the parts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] …parts are of course, currently taxed. Under the plan that’s before you, their income tax would fall $900 and they would pay $14 additional tax on the service. So, quick math would say that they would have a tax savings of $886. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up.

him in town, and I don't pretend to be one that just on look at the V the immediate out-of-pocket expense for that family for who has had that vehicle to go to work to do their due diligence to do the functions of life. what is out of cost to that person that you are not paying [SPEAKER CHANGES] as I understand it now, but will be paying after July one. what is it going to cost that person sure I understand what you're asking. I acknowledged the first time that you asked that the service. the actual labour owns a nineteen eighty nine Cavalier would be taxed, but that also went on to tell you that because of this income tax relief as they would provide that this bill provides that they would receive as saying that under the scenario you ask the savings for that individual, or that working family in Robinson Cano makes save eight hundred and eighty six dollars. [SPEAKER CHANGES] you answered my question. there would be in a tax on that of maintenance on that vehicle. you did answer my question and that is a tax increase, making representative. I hope of Euros do you recognize [SPEAKER CHANGES] we don't bail on what it was about the value of this value of the dollar, you know you think it's real insignificant and two million. but then here it is,unless is the only dollar that you have no hot this dollar will buy my Diet Coke blackmail Obama meal or what, but some child the value of the dollar is different, but you and I than it is for a lot of people. now they are greatly affect the big eight thousand four hundred and thirty five people in the wake County alone after the thousand people this dollar we really can go a long way because they know how to use the stop some of the things that have been packed out with the sales tax on repairs, alterations, you know what I need to be passed because we had new with things, but when you pull your weight on all the things in Europe had a more frequent increases when you have to pay that sales tax on both. I don't really take those into consideration also a five author regular concern. not many of us made it when we were younger. have to get their older brothers and sisters clothing and have it all today and repaid you don't many of us is difficult. we can go to the store and buy a new outfit. if it doesn't fit,but when you're poor, you have to pay for, alterations have to pay what a lot of things that you normally don't have to pay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I like to submit an amendment to view for one moment on for housekeeping purposes and for information of members of the house. it is the intent of the chair to vote on this bill at twelve fifty yuan notes and free members and haveany other members out there, please send them forward now or there's the rub the remaining amendments will be ruled ineligible representative Holly, you are recognized for your amendment thankyou that your accident Holly moves the amended bill on page two. Saint through thirty two. by rewriting the lines to read [SPEAKER CHANGES] through all your recognizes by Norman in a basketball you want to come in the committee. the hot work to be done on the bill and it's a better bill and initial thing that I saw, and the improvement of guilt is not addressed in the end, the real working people here in this state, and we keep getting so what this bill does. it doesn't help that the amendment does Victor change this evening and attach rate is six. nine percent. it will hold firm the act, a compact, Greg and I respect for the next five years, not increase just fun hold 'em get a pocket armpit that lacks some of the sales of the big happened pregnant and it will also deliver

...?? tax. The increase that will be coming forth in the electricity tax is revenue neutral. It all balances out. Because when your air conditioning breaks down, or you have to run that fan all night on a hot summer night in an apartment with six people and that's nice. Then you have you to pay the electricity to do that. That has a major impact on a lot of our people in the community. So all I'm asking is let's be moderate. Let's not try to make anything. Let's lower it. I'm not trying to get the 7.75 from the $1 million people. Let's lower it down to 6.9. They'll get a break. Let's give a small break or at least continue on the 5% for the earned income tax credit. And let's neutralize or keep the same the electricity tax. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Stam arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would Representative Holley yield for one question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I will yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, since you weren't here in 2009, you're a good person to ask this question to, because those of us who were here, you know, may have to be invested in defending what we did. But in 2009, there was a $1 billion sales tax increase on every unemployed person, disabled person, retired person, child, low income person. What did you think about that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] As far as, if you really want to know that truth, that trade off for the services we were getting at the time for that 1%, that tax increase, it was well spent money. So I truly believe that that was well spent money. The services that have been cut as a result of that tax break are needy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose Representative Glazier arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Holley will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you, Representative. I just want to follow Representative Stam's question to you. So in 2009, that came as I recall after the world went into recession and a global recession, in unprecedented ways since the Great Depression, and isn't it true, as well at that time, that what was happening was that the State did in fact have a temporary increase in revenue. But it also had to cut another $1 billion and a half out of the budget while it was trying to not end or eliminate basic safety net services and keep the basic economy of this State going. Would that also be accurate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's accurate. That's what I'm talking about. The bang for the buck. The value of that dollar. It may have put taking a dollar out of my pocket, but it helps somebody else. And the loss in services that we received at that time, to me, were not worth that slight decrease that was given. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Moore arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, move that the amendment do lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, you've heard to set the motion in the second. The motion is to allow the Holley Amendment to lie upon the table. We'll allow the members to return to their seats. The question before the House is to table the Holley Amendment and for it to lie upon the table. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. The motion to lie the Holley Amendment on the table passed 33 in the affirmative, 30 in the negative. The motion passes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Luebke arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wanted to speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, could I be recognized? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. Excuse you... [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was in the Chamber and would like to be reflected as voting no on the last... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall will be reflected as voting no. We are back on the bill.

To ask Representative Louis a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Louis, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Louis, in your opening remarks, you indicated that the mortgage interest and property tax deduction had been put back. That's not quite true, is it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Representative, the mortgage interest deduction and the property tax deduction is still in the bill. There's a 2500 cap that is on there which, based on all the information we have, covers 98% of all those holding mortgages in our state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, another question, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to get that it was a 25000 dollar cap. That it was capped at 25000. But my next question, take my neighborhood mechanic who I take to do certain things to and he goes to dealer or supplier and he buys whatever materials he needs, whatever equipment he needs, and he pays taxes on that to the dealer that he buys it from. Now he comes and puts it on my car. Is he supposed to charge me another tax that he's already paid for that, or does he put it in his bill and does he then put labor in there? In other words he's charging me for the parts and the labor, the parts he's already paid tax on, but the labor he hasn't paid tax on. And what I'm getting at is that he's not in that stream that already pays taxes to the state. Am I correct on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Sho, I tried very hard to follow what you ask of. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I... Let me clarify. [SPEAKER CHANGES] By all means. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What I'm getting at, Representative Louis, is that my neighborhood mechanic, I take my car to him and he replaces the brake pad that he's already bought and paid the tax for. When he gives me his bill, he doesn't charge, does he charge me the tax again on there, or does he include the tax in the parts part and keep the other parts separate? Point I'm getting at is that he's not the usual tax collector in this situation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He would not charge you taxes, or the tax would not be paid on the same part twice. He should have the ability now to go and by the parts which he intends to resell, and not pay the sales tax to the vendor from whom he buys them. And then he's supposed assess the sales tax to you now on the parts when you buy 'em. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I didn't follow your answer on that because if he's bought the parts and paid the taxes on it when he bought the parts and then he puts the parts on your car, then he's not, he doesn't collect the sales tax from you on that part he's put on your car. 'Cause he's already paid. I mean he gets it back, but he doesn't have to pay it to the state, does he? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Under the scenario you said, Representative Sho, he would have already paid the sales tax due on the parts at the point where he bought the parts, so there'd be no change in that regard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The point I'm getting at, Representative Louis, is the fact that he is not in that mainstream that sits out there normally collects taxes and remits them to the state. And what you're gonna do is charge him for his services. Is that not correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Sho, I have relayed to you on the floor what I believe to be the current law, which is, he has the ability not to remit the tax at the time he buys the part. And to charge you the, if he makes that choice, he would then collect and remit the tax from you at the time that you did the repair. if he elects, for some reason, not to do that, he would still have the obligation to tax the labor that he performed. But I'm really not sure that's how ?? operates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr... To ask him another.

Follow up. [Speaker Changes] The other question, because I want to speak on that other part. What I'm looking at right now, this year, in this year's tax rate, I think the amount is going to be about 302 million dollars. Am I correct on that? [Speaker Changes] Representative Mashogue, are you asking what the total impact to Ovala big penalty is? Yes sir. [Speaker Changes] No sir, you're not correct. [Speaker Changes] May I ask another question? [Speaker Changes] Follow up. [Speaker Changes] How much is it? [Speaker Changes] The entire impact for the two year cycle, which is what I have before me––I'll be glad to try and get this for you once we adjourn. The entire impact on Ovala big penalty for the two years is a negative 302.3 million over two years. [Speaker Changes] I'm sorry. But it is 302 million over the biennial? [Speaker Changes] Yes sir. [Speaker Changes] Could I speak on the bill. [Speaker Changes] Speak on the bill, yes sir, you're recognized. [Speaker Changes] Ladies and gentlemen, the only thing I was trying to do in this instance of where you're beginning to charge a sales tax for labor, you've got your neighborhood mechanic who's out there who you take your car –– now I'm not talking about Leaf BMW or any of the dealers, I'm talking about just the actual neighborhood mechanic, the guy who sits at the service station, who buys a car from Leaf dealer, from Leaf, and pays the tax. And he comes and he's not in the mainstream of collecting taxes for the state. But what you're going to make him do, is you're going to make him get in the mainstream by making him charge a tax on the labor that he does on that. Now two problems arise there. Number one, you're going to make a lot of crooks out of a lot of people. And number two, you haven't put enough money in there for the Department of Revenue to go around and inspect all of these folks who do this, in order to try to catch them in those sales tax situations. The other part of it is, the 302 million dollars I may have inadvertently stated the question to you, but it was –– the 302 million is for the biennial. That's 302 million dollars that's being taken out of our availability for the biennial that could go for a lot of things, could take care of maybe a little bit of a raise for teachers, a little bit of help in those folks who are receiving services on medicaid, a little bit of a raise for state employees. 302 million dollars can go a long ways toward alleviating a lot of the problems that we have already created in this session. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does Representative Collins rise? [Speaker Changes] To see if Representative Mashogue would yield to a question? [Speaker Changes] I'd be happy to Representative Collins. [Speaker Changes] Representative Mashogue does yield. [Speaker Changes] Representative Mashogue, can you tell me where I can go to these repair shops that don't charge us any sales tax on parts? Because I've never been to one in my life? [Speaker Changes] Well, if you don't have a neighborhood mechanic –– If you take your car to a dealership, yes. You have never been to a neighborhood mechanic. But I have. I've been to a neighborhood mechanic who will replace my brake pads. I've been to Jiffy Lube, for instance, who's put in a new wiper, who's already paid tax for that. Yeah, I've been to those people. Not to –– I don't expect that. I'm just talking about the other one. But anyway, let me get back to the 302. The 302 million, folks, would go a long way in alleviating some of the problems that we have in keeping up the morale. If you really want to build morale you buy teachers.... It would go a long ways in keeping teaching assistants in those grades that we need. It would go a long way in keeping the cap on class size. Just think about what you're doing. There are other ways of doing this. I know for a fact that there are loopholes that can be cut that would greatly enhance what we're doing. But I don't see any cut in loopholes in here that amount to anything. I guarantee you you can find at least five billion dollars in loopholes in the budgets that we are now operating. So I think we just need to go back and take another look. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does Representative McManus arise? [Speaker Changes] To speak to the bill and put forth an amendment. [Speaker Changes] The lady is recognized to send forth an amendment. [Speaker Changes] Thank you very much. There are a lot of parts about this...

But I don’t think they're so bad. There are few parts do disturb me. Every year, we hear of elderly people who die from heat exhaustion in the summer or from the extreme cold in the winter. We have low income families dying from the fires or fumes from portable heaters that they try to use in their homes that are unsafe, all because they couldn’t afford to heat with electricity or gas. Those people I think, we need to worry about. My amendment would raise the income tax rate on millionaires, those earning above $1 million. Now, ?? Representative Hall said he wasn't lucky enough to know any of those millionaires. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me, Representative McManus, let one moment for housekeeping. The clerk will read the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McManus moves to amend the bill on page 2 lines 8 through 32 by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, McManus, please proceed and I apologize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s okay. Thank you very much. I do know few of those millionaires. Some of them live in the very northeastern end of my district and live in beautiful gated communities and I've been lucky enough to visit a few of their homes. Now, we keep talking about these poor millionaires who work so hard and why would we punish them. Now I'm not saying they don’t work hard, but honestly, I don’t believe they are working nearly as hard as a lot of our low-income people. They take nice vacations. They live in very nice houses. They actually go on long trips, go to Europe for the summer or things like that. They enjoy personal services like housekeepers and landscaping lawn services. They have nice cars that run dependably. They have good excellent insurance with medical care… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Collins arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to see if the Representative would yield for question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does Representative McManus yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could I finish please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] She does not yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then I would… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please proceed, Representative McManus. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I have the grudge of these people that I actually would love to aspire to their lifestyles. They are good people. They have earned their money. I don’t want to punish them. But most of the ones I know actually have felt like they've benefited from North Carolina and they don’t mind doing their part to help North Carolina. I also know people who work three and four jobs and never go on vacation and struggle to pay for a lawnmower to mow their lawn-yard and they clean their own house and they fix their own car and they pray that their children don’t have to go to the doctor, because that’s one of those little bumps in the road that they just can't afford. So I would like to offer this amendment to help with the electrical bills and the tax on those electrical bills. The current bill that we have before us sets the sales tax on electricity at 7%. Now with the current franchise tax of 3.22 and the sales tax of 3% that puts our current before the bill, total sales tax, well, total tax at 6.22%. At the increase to 7%, that’s an increase of 0.78, which is about $60 million. This amendment would keep the personal income tax rate for those earning over $1 million and it would reduce the tax on electricity from – it would leave the franchise tax at 3.22% and lower the sales tax rate on electricity from 3% to 1.5%, which would save 100 – save North Carolinians $122 million on their electric bills. Now taking that from where we are now to where that would put us, it would be a total savings of $182 million on electrical bills for North Carolinians. So I would like to put forward this amendment and I would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Moore arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that the amendment do lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question for the House sent forth by Representative Moore is a motion for the McManus amendment to lie upon the table. All in favor will vote aye. All oppose will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. The motion to lie upon the table of the…

[Speaker changes.]..McManus amendment passed. 67 aye, 34 no. The motion's tabled. Representative Luebke, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker changes.] Speak on the bill. [Speaker changes.] You're recognized to speak on the bill. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker and Members of the House, I wanna just say first on these amendments, I don't know what the leadership is afraid of. We have two amendments primarily about restoring the Earned Income Tax Credit, one at a way to really help the working poor, another to save... [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker? [Speaker changes.] For what purpose does Representative Jeter arise? [Speaker changes.] For speaker of the Chair?///?!?#@?!?@#? [Speaker changes.] State the inquiry. [Speaker changes.] Is the gentleman debating the bill or is he debating amendments that aren't in front of us? [Speaker changes.] He'll get to the bill in a moment, I know. (Laughter.)Representative Luebke, please continue. [Speaker changes.] That's...that's exactly right cause Representative Setzer and I have served one another for a couple decades and we know each other's styles so we know how it's gonna go. [Speaker changes.] Absolutely... [Speaker changes.] And I will say, just thirdly, that I think it is particularly unfortunate that the hardwork that Representative McManus put on her amendment to reduce the electricity tax...that she wasn't even...there wasn't even a rejoinder to it. Before she could barely sit down, having explained her amendment, the question was called and I think that is actually reprehensible. But now, let me get on the bill. Make no doubt about it, folks, notwithstanding what my friend, Representative Lewis says or any other supporter of this bill, advocate for this bill. This is a millionaire's tax cut bill. [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker? [Speaker changes.] It is exactly that and I will not yield. [Speaker changes.] He will not yield, Representative Stam..but thank you. [Speaker changes.] Senator Luebke, please continue. [Speaker changes.] And how do I know that? I'm gonna look at some data that came from our physical research division. Data that I really wish...the chairs had put...accompany had put it with the bill so that all members could've seen the impact of this bill. I have it right here and I will tell you. All this talk about helping the low income families, let me tell you what our fiscal research staff tells us...for a family, married, filing jointly with two children. Break in income tax? Forty dollars. Increased sales tax because of the sales tax on electricity, on automobile repairs that Representative Graham was referencing...number of other services that are going up...thirty-eight dollars. Net benefit from this bill? Members of the House, two dollars. Oh that's great tax relief for those makin' twenty percent. Be proud of that when you go home to your districts and talk about the break you gave folks making 20,000. Let's look at $40,000. Income tax break? $116. More sales taxes paid by this family with $40,000. $74. Net break for this family thanks to the great House Bill 998. $42. Now I don't think you can take the family to Appleby's for that. So $42. Now let me just jump ahead to tell you why it's...I've just told you why it's not a bill for working families or the middle class. In fact, let's get to the middle class...$100,000... [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker? [Speaker changes.] For what purpose does Representative Collins rise? [Speaker changes.] To see if Representative Luebke would yield for a question. [Speaker changes.] I will not yield. [Speaker changes.] He will not yield. Please proceed. [Speaker changes.] Let me go to the middle-class family that some would call the upper-middle class. 100,000..again staff data, I didn't make these up...staff. $100,000 income, married, filing jointly with two children. Income tax cut of $110. Increase on sales taxes due to the increase on sales tax on services? $130. Net tax increase for a family making $100,000. $20. [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker? Mister Speaker? [Speaker changes.] For what purpose does Representative Dollar arise? [Speaker changes.] To see if the Representative will yield for a question. [Speaker changes.] I will yield when I'm finished. [Speaker changes.] Representative Luebke will yield when he's...everybody probably knows that by now anyhow. [Speaker changes.] Yes, sir. ????????????? can continue. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, sir. My point is this. I heard a lot of folks back and forth on the Hall amendment saying, talking to one another and saying oh no...now there's nobody in here that's gonna pay more taxes is there? Absolutely not. You shoulda' looked at your own staff report...cause your staff report shows you that a family making $100,000 is, in fact, gonna pay $20 more. Not much. But the fact that everybody's supposed to get an increase from this wonderful bill, tax decrease from this wonderful bill is just a bunch of malarkey. And now, let's go to the millionaires. And why many of us don't think the millionaires deserve a tax cut. A family making one million dollars. Income tax change...bahbahbah. Sales tax change...bahbah. Net impact....

This bill for a family making a million dollars, yes. Twelve-thousand five hundred and twenty three dollars. So you see it is millionaires tax cut bill because I told you about twenty thousand, fourty thousand, one-hundred thousand is virtually nothing. Everyone in this room can agree that this is virtually nothing. Now we look to a millionaire and and the millionaires get twelve thousand five hundred and twenty three dollars. Really none of us can defend that if we call it a peoples bill. David Luois my friend, this is a millionaires tax cut. And if you don't have enough information let me give you the last one. For a family making four million. Whats the net impact, that is to say, income tax change minus tax sales increases. $62,181. So you're about to vote on a bill and or pass a bill that provides $62,181.00 dollars for a family making 4 million a year. Now lets go further. How many millionaires are there? I checked with staff. There are 8500 tax returns in this state in which incomes, families that have more than a million dollars taxable, 8500 people. How much is that a percentage of our taxpayers? 0.20%. Stated differently how many of us are not millionaires? 99.8%. But you saw where the bulk of the money is going. $12,000 for a millionaire family. $62,000 for a four million dollar family. It comes up to in terms of what we don't have for the services, that represent Flashiers reference, represent Holly's reference. All those services you hear about teaching's assistant, fire department, no raises for teachers apparently . Point of order.For what purpose does Senator Moore rise? Mister Speaker, is the gentleman debating a budget that is not on the floor at this point? Or is the gentleman debating a tax bill that is? Representative Moore, I'm debating a bill that you can have a budget without revenue. Please stick to the bill blueprint. ( Thank you mister speaker). I'm just saying folks, Those 8500 filers following the data from our staff, will receive in one year as a consequence of this bill, 290 million dollars. NOw I don't want to venture into budget land, but when you think of budget land into terms of human services or education, k-12, community colleges or universities.If you think that way. I know I can think of a lot of good uses for those 290 million dollars. I believe the people of this state can and I believe that this is just a bill that hurts the middle class, it helps the millionaires the public should know about it and we should all vote no. Thank you, mister speaker. For what purpose does representative Stan arise? Does representative Luke yield? Representative Lukey, I've heard about these millionaires to deserve no relief, or little relief. Would you explain your vote on Tuesday to give these millionaires a half billion dollars of tax relief? This bill. I didn't vote for this bill. I don't understand, you know I have always voted against this bill. I don't know where your questions is coming from representative Stan. Will representative Moore rise? Thank you representatives and speakers, I think the hour has drawn to a close for us to finally take action for this but before making a motion I would like to address a few things. I think the point that representative Stan was making was from the gentleman that was voting to make an amendment in committee, would have in fact given tax breaks to the millionaires but I guess folks are entiled to change their opinion, even if it is falling a couple days apart. I did want to address this, this bill is a tax cut and a couple of things that the components have failed to mention is.

Have played with, and that is, of course those who pay more taxes or ?? more of a cut because they pay more taxes, that's simple math. But the things that folks are also now looking at is this tax cut bill helps everybody. There's some who say maybe it doesn't help the poor enough, but it will, it helps as much as we can make it do, but also the other part that's not being talked about is that when we put these tax cut bills through, it's going to make our state more competitive for new business, to bring more jobs, so that those who are down on the lower income rungs right now will hopefully rise up. They'll earn more money. That's the intent of this bill. This bill is designed to make the state more competitive, and I want to thank Rep Lewis and the others who spent so many hours working on this bill and I think this is a great day for North Carolina and the folks have been waiting for years for it, so with the motion I'm about to make, hopefully they're not going to have to wait very much longer if I may be recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore you are certainly welcome. Recognize for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the speaker move the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The call for the previous question having been made as ?? and having been sustained, those in favor of the previous question, ??? the House having been made, the vote those in favor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On call of the question, don't we get some firm arguments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We vote on the previous question and then that second, that comes next. I understand completely, I had to ask that myself. By all means. The call for the previous question having been raised, those in favor vote "aye", those opposed vote "no". The clerk will open the machine. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 71 having voted in the affirmative and 32 in the negative the call has been sustained, we will have a, the call having been sustained, we will now hear from the minority leader and the majority leader not to exceed a period of 3 minutes or their designated Representative. Representative Hall Recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. We've heard a lot of information, we've heard it throughout the process. The fact doesn't change and for those who warrant details, Representative Loubke broke it down to show you exactly what those tax increases are and who gets benefit from this bill. Now, to say that we're helping the working poor or the middle class families, that's not what this bill does and the staff figures already showed it. To say that millionaires disproportionately benefit from this, yes that is the fact. Yes, they're in North Carolina, yes there are 8,500 of them. But what about the rest of North Carolina, what about the other millions of North Carolinians who don't get any benefit out of this and pay those extra taxes. This is a tax increase bill, I don't think that's what it was represented to be. Nobody stood up and said or will say yes, this is a tax increase bill unless you're one of the lucky 8,500. We didn't want to characterize it as the 1%ers bill, but that's almost what it was. Actually it's the 2%ers bill, but who's going to quibble over 1%. I don't think this is what North Carolinians want. To have the tax burden shifted to those who can least afford it. To those struggling families trying to stay in the middle Class and get out of it and then those who don't need the help. This idea that it's going to create jobs, again, the facts ??? we have one of those most sought after states for businesses and companies to come to right now. We are ready on average 1, 2 or 3 over the last ten years where the place people want to come and do business and that's because we've had this education system and other entities in the state of North Carolina that support business and allow them to thrive here, and that's why we have those 8,500 millionaires who are going to benefit from this bill at the expense of the rest of North Carolinians. So again I'd ask that you vote against 998. Vote for North Carolinians, and vote against 998. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Hall. For what purpose does Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I have served in the House for almost 20 years now and we have talked about tax reform for decades.

And until today, it has been nothing more than just that. Talk. The Democrats have tried it and were unsuccessful when they controlled both Chambers of the legislature and the Governor. And now today the Republicans are fulfilling a promise that we made to the people of this State. That if you would give and trust us with your vote, we will bring you meaningful tax reform that will help move us forward as we struggle with an economy that is transitioning from a manufacturing to services. And yes we are mired in a recession that proves to be very stubborn and ending. But we have to look at ways that we can even out the revenue of this State so that we can eliminate some of the ups and the downs and the peaks and the lows, so that we can maintain a stable budget to deliver essential services to the State or to the people that benefit from those services. Now what we have done in this tax package is a very, very good step in the right direction. Under every scenario that I have looked at. Whether it's a low income person, a moderate income family, or a high income family, everyone benefits. I don't see any real losers in this tax package. And that's what the genius of this plan is. We have been able to put together a plan that everyone benefits from. Who would have thought, even six months ago, that it was possible to move to a flat tax rate that lowers the income tax for every tax payer in this State? And we have done that with this plan. And yet we've been able to do it in such a way that we enable the average citizens to maintain their mortgage deduction and their deductions for property taxes. We have enabled the people of this State to continue to give to the charities of their choice because we're in the situation where the State government is having to shrink its budget and we're asking the private sector to step up to the plate and to do more. And we've been able to do that by maintaining our charitable contributions. And the private sector will stand up and do their part. This is a good plan. It's an historic day and I ask you to join me in making history by voting yes on this plan. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Now the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 998 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. House Bill 998 has passed its second reading by a vote of 72 in the affirmative and 32 in the negative, and will remain on the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to thank you all for your kind endurance and patience. I am not one of the people that's tried to claw my way to this podium and I would like to thank you for... [Applause] [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. Representative Harrison, the Chair understands the lady may be removing her objection to consideration for Senate Bill 76? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there further objection? This is the third reading for Senate Bill 76. Representative Hagar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I offer a slightly technical amendment to Senate Bill 76. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, before we have the amendment properly before us, we must have the bill before us. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hagar moves to amend the bill on page 11, line 25, by deleting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Cohen brought this issue up to me. We want to change the word notification to enactment.

?? instead of reading "upon notification the Secretary of State shall furnish" it will read "upon enactment the Secretary of State shall furnish." Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I've spoken to the governor's office and they're fine with this amendment, so I ask you to support 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 Hager for the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 76. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 99 having voted in the affirmative and 4 in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Queen, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wanted to just stand since I spoke last time on this bill, I've had a number of constituents send me, who are evidently listening in, assistance on things I hadn't read. So I thought I would share them with you. And a number of the members hadn't found any studies that had indicated that fracking contaminated water, so I thought I might share this with them. This is a study from the Nicholas School of the Environment over at Duke, the opening paragraph, it's "Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing," and the opening paragraph is "Directional drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies are dramatically increasing natural-gas extraction. In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Ithaca shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we documented systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shalegas extraction." A second reference: in 2011, EPA found 14 "contaminants of concern"--I'll come back to that phrase--in 11 private wells in Pavillion, Wyoming, in an area of about 250 gas wells. Benzene was found in 50 times safe levels along with other hazardous chemicals--methane, diesel fuel, heavy metals--in both ground water and deep wells. Third reference: a Congressional report estimated that fracking fluids, and I will say this, fracking fluids have been somehow exempted from being identified as proprietary information, so it's a little hard to know what these companies pump in the ground in the way of poisons because their lobbyists have managed to keep that from the public information. But the Congressional report estimates that fracking fluids contain as many as 29 known or suspected carcinogens, including benzene and lead. A New York State study found that companies injected 10.2 million gallons of water with at least one of these known carcinogens between 2005 and 2009. So that's just a few references to start with. Thank you. I hope you'll vote no on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 76, as amended. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 71 having voted in the affirmative and 32 in the negative, the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 76, as amended, has passed its third reading. The bill being grossed and returned to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the calendar for today. For your planning purposes again, we will have a session on Monday night. We will have no limit to the debate. The only limit to the debate will be the calendar time between the time we

…start at midnight on the tax bill. We do hope to take up some other bills, however, if we’re able to dispense with that earlier. For next week, I think through announcements, if you’ll please pay attention so that you can plan accordingly for next week. Representative McManus please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not sure how I voted on that last one. I meant to vote, “No.” Could you just check that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as voting, “No.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Notices and announcements. Representative Boles, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Subcommittee on JPS will meet at 1:45 in our usual room. We will take up any amendments and pass our budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Of course, as you know, the Appropriations Subcommittees that didn’t finish this morning will be going in according to their schedule this afternoon and completing their work. Full appropriations which we anticipate will probably take up most if not all of Tuesday will begin at 8:30 Tuesday morning in 643, so be prepared for it. We’ll have the instructions and the like at that time. We’ll probably set the normal time of noon on Tuesday for amendments to be brought to the staff for drafting. So, 8:30 Tuesday morning we’ll have full appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, the Chair had an inquiry from the Minority Leader about having access to staff. Has that been worked out? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For the committees that have a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, what does the Speaker anticipate will be the Wednesday schedule? Should we be prepared to just not have those committees meet? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for the question, Representative Blust. I would guess that it would be prudent for us to plan on a 10 or 11 o’clock start on Wednesday and Thursday so we can do our best to get rooms available so you can have committee meetings earlier. But I do intend Session will start earlier. It may still go late even at that. Representative McElraft, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] NER Committee’s subcommittee will meet at 2:15. All amendments must be in the committee room by 1:45 to be considered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McManus, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry, I just hadn’t turned it off. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Dollar would answer a question please, a series of questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, the amendment should be in by noon on Tuesday? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That will be the…Let me try to clarify. We anticipate that the full budget bill will be online sometime, probably late Sunday night. When that full bill is released obviously it will be available on Monday. We have to account for the time to print, but that document is the document from which you would develop amendments for full appropriations on Tuesday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So are we going to take amendments at 8:30 or are you saying that amendments will stop at 12 noon? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What normally happens is when we come in and start the meeting at 8:30 on Tuesday morning, we will have reports from the subject areas from the sub-chairs. Once those reports are complete, we would begin the process of considering amendments. Some people will have their amendments ready, that’s sort of the normal course. Other people will be working. But we will have a noon cutoff for amendments to be logged with physical staff for drafting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Last question, Representative Dollar. I’m on General Government. Can I go to Health and Human Services and borrow some money from them for the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To borrow it from who?

Well, let me… [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm just trying to get some clarity for those who want ?? amendments about... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, let me – I understand, I think I understand your question. And it’s a good point for those who don’t know. Amendments have to be within the particular subject area. In other words, you can't want funds for Health and Human Services and go over to education and get that money. It can only be within and this is by the rules of the House that have been adopted by this chamber. They have to be in that subject area and everything has to balance within that subject area. If you want funds for some project, you got to find where it’s going to come from within that subject area. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks, Representative ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker, for a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I like for the rest of the members of the House to join me in congratulating Representative John Torbett and his wife ?? on a 33rd wedding anniversary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The ladies and gentleman, I know many of you familiar with the Capitol Commission Bible Study. And many of you participate in that or the monthly payer breakfasts. The bible study will not meet on Monday, and the reason that is that they are having their Annual Golf Tournament Fundraiser. I would – I know that many are planning to play in that. It is not too late to sign-up. I believe if you interested in playing and if you are not a golfer, you can come out and participate and have a good time as well. I'm sure they will find something for you to do or you can be a sponsor. So that would be on Monday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Having an wonderful anniversary this morning in transportation Subcommittee on Appropriations, want to alert the members that might not have attended the first session that, that was the only session. There will be no more session this afternoon as our work has concluded. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Appropriations General Government will meet immediately after session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker we incorrectly noticed transportation for the 11th of June rather than the 18th, and while I recognize many people would like to have an excuse not to go to appropriations, transportation will not meet next Tuesday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Saine, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A personal privilege, a motion of personal privilege and an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege and following that an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good things do come from working together. On Twitter this morning whilst having a debate with Representative Queen's Legislative Assistant, who alerted to me that today is indeed National Donut Day. Hence, your donuts that you received, he helped me, I said, well, I'll buy them if you go pick them up. And also Representative Wray's Legislative Assistant assisted in that. So please thank those gentlemen. Also for an announcement IT Committee met this morning. We have concluded our business and passed through our portion of budget without amendments so there'll be no need for another meeting. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, Representative Saine was allowed to chair momentarily because of the delivery of the donuts, the chair may consider your chairing sometime. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Horn, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Education Appropriations Committee will meet at 1:45 and get your amendments in, so we can be out of there by 2 o' clock. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I would like to change my vote on. No, no, no in my enthusiasm to vote no on Senate Bill 786 and I inadvertently voted no on the ?? amendment, I'd like to be recorded as voting aye on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady be recorded as voting aye on the amendment, on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative – ladies and gentlemen if the – from the chair if I may take a moment of personal privilege. My seat-mate Representative Brown's wife, I think it was probably last Wednesday he got his first call that she was beginning to have contractions at that time were about eight minutes apart. And over the course of the past…

[0:00:00.0] …She is had contraction so gone as far as three minutes apart as matter of fact yesterday Representative Brown was here when they were three minutes apart and we are about to take a caucus position against him being here and I think that she has now still continue with contractions we hope and pray for her health and health of the baby and hopefully for a delivery and will be a new dad. [Applause] Representative Hollow please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Subcommittee health and human services will meet at 2 o’clock if you would please the committee please have your amendment sent by 01:45, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just an announcement for democratic members of appropriations will have a briefing starting at 2 o’clock Monday in 1425 for democratic members of appropriations those who are left un-listening and will have caucus one hour before session Monday evening. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker move that the house do now adjourned to reconvene at 07:00 PM on Monday June, 10th subject to recede of committee reports, re-referrals and bills of resolutions and modifications to the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore move seconded by Representative Louis and subject to the recede of committee reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions and modifications to the calendar that the house do now adjourn to reconvene on Monday, May 10th at 07:00 PM, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All oppose say no the ayes have it the house stand adjourns. [0:01:59.9] [End of file…]